Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
AVEC AEA Round 6 Stebbins Wind Design & Permitting CDR
STEBBINS WIND PROJECT CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT Prepared For: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative 4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Prepared By: Mark Swenson, P.E. 1 HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants 3335 Arctic Blvd., Ste. 100 Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: 907.564.2120 Fax: 907.564.2122 September 19, 2012 Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report has been prepared for the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) to provide a conceptual design and cost analysis for the development of wind power generation in the community Stebbins, Alaska. Stebbins is a rural, coastal community of approximately 585 residents located on St. Michael Island, 125 air miles south of Nome. AVEC is currently constructing a new power plant and bulk fuel facility in Stebbins to accommodate the combined electrical loading for Stebbins and the neighboring community of St. Michael. An 11-mile long electrical intertie is planned along the road that connects the two villages. Integration of wind turbine power into the proposed electrical power generation system will offset diesel consumption and provide a renewable energy resource for the two rural communities. A Project Layout Plan (Sheet G1.03 of Appendix A) shows the project location, components, and proposed intertie route. On July 11, 2010, a meteorological (met) tower was installed on a steep volcanic rock outcrop, or cinder cone, approximately midway along the intertie route between Stebbins and St. Michael. The met tower was equipped with instrumentation and data loggers to evaluate and record the wind resource on St. Michael Island. The met tower was functional until September 19, 2011. In the winter of 2011, the met tower was relocated to a potential wind tower location closer to Stebbins, near the intersection of the Stebbins Landfill Access Road and the Stebbins -St. Michael Road. The tower was relocated to better correlate the recorded wind data on the cinder cone site to the potential wind tower location near Stebbins. The met tower is still recording data at the new location at the time of this report. The results of the data acquisition and analysis of the wind resource are included in the Stebbins -St. Michael Wind - Diesel Feasibility Analysis dated September 12, 2012 (Appendix B). On September 19, 2011, AVEC, Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL), and V3 Energy performed a site visit to St. Michael Island to identify possible wind turbine locations. Multiple wind turbine sites were investigated along the intertie route and one site was selected for evaluation for this report. The site (Stebbins Site 1) is located north of Stebbins on a ridgeline near the intersection of the Stebbins landfill access road (near the Stebbins met tower). Following the field investigation, a second site was selected based on the wind modeling results. The second site (Stebbins Site 2) is located along Cape Stephens Bluff on the northwestern tip of St. Michael Island. Both sites are located in a Class 4 or higher wind resource and are within 1.25 miles of the new power plant in Stebbins. For this report, AVEC selected two wind turbine configurations for evaluation. • The first configuration includes (4) Northern Power 100 Arctic turbines (NP100), formerly known as the Northwind 100. The Northern Power 100 Arctic turbine is a 37 meter (121- foot), 100 kW permanent magnet, direct drive wind power generator that AVEC previously installed in 10 other villages in rural Alaska. The (4) Northern Power 100 Arctic tower array has a maximum power generation output of 400 kW. • The second turbine configuration consists of (1) EWT 52-900 turbine. The EWT 52-900 turbine is a 40 meter (131-foot), 900 kW, direct drive generator. This configuration has a HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL$e September 19 2012 Engineering Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report maximum power generation output of 900 kW but can be internally de -rated using blade pitch control to match loading requirements. Each turbine would be installed on a monopole tower with precast concrete and rock anchor foundation. A comparison of the two turbine configurations installed at each site is presented in Tables EX-1 and EX-2 below. Table EX-1: Turbine Alternative Comparison Summary Estimated Estimated Annual Energy Alt Turbine Selection Site Generation Estimated Capital Cost Capital Cost per Installed Production Capacity (kW) kW @ 100 % Availibility 1 (4) NP100's Stebbins 1 400 $4.22 M $10,551 1,081 MWh 2 (4) NP 100's Stebbins 2 400 $ 4.33 M $10,818 1,297 MWh 3 (1) EWT 52-900 Stebbins 1 900 $4.88 M $5,417 2,568 MWh 4 (1) EWT 52-900 Stebbins 2 900 $5.00 M $5,556 3,047 MWh Source: Annual Energy Production data taken from V3 Energy's September 2012 Stebbins -St. Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Analysis Table EX-2: Economic Analysis Summary Annual Wind Wind Heating Fuel Generation @ Wind Energy For Energy For Wind as % Wind as ° /o Displaced By Alt 80%Availability Power (kWh/yr) Heat Total Power Total Thermal Wind Energy (kWh/yr) production (%) Production (%) (ga I/yr) (kWh) 1 865,186 813,492 54,607 25 3 1,764 2 1,038,372 962,579 79,478 29 4 2,567 3 2,054,400 1,268,100 593,384 33 27 19,165 4 2,437,600 1,448,423 1 807,227 36 35 1 26,072 Source: Information taken from Northern Economics Inc. Stebbins -St. Michael Proposed Wind Project Economic Evaluation Report Based on the analysis presented above, we recommend AVEC proceed with design and permitting for installation of one EWT 52-900 turbine at Stebbins Site 2. If site control cannot be negotiated for Stebbins Site 2, we recommend that the EWT 52-900 turbines be installed at Stebbins Site 1. September 19 2012 II 1HATTENBURG DILLEY&LMNELL p� Engineering Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................i 2.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1 2.1 BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................1 2.2 LOCATION..............................................................................................................................2 2.3 CLIMATE.................................................................................................................................3 2.4 EXISTING ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS..............................................................................3 2.5 NEW ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS.....................................................................................4 2.6 ELECTRICAL DEMAND............................................................................................................5 2.7 STEBBINS RECOVERED HEAT POTENTIAL.............................................................................6 2.8 CONTRIBUTORS AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION.............................................................7 2.9 LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................................7 3.0 WIND DATA ACQUISITION AND MODELING..................................................................8 3.1 DATA ACQUISITION...............................................................................................................8 3.2 WIND MODELING RESULTS...................................................................................................9 4.0 STEBBINS WIND SITE ANALYSIS....................................................................................9 4.1 WIND SITE INVESTIGATION..................................................................................................9 4.1.1 St. Michael Site 1.......................................................................................................9 4.1.2 St. Michael Site 2.....................................................................................................10 4.1.3 Stebbins Site 1.........................................................................................................11 4.1.4 Stebbins Site 2.........................................................................................................12 5.0 WIND TURBINE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES.....................................................................13 5.1 STEBBINS WIND TURBINE ANALYSIS..................................................................................13 5.1.1 Northern Power 100 Arctic.....................................................................................13 5.1.2 EWT 52-900..............................................................................................................14 5.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 - (4) NP100 TURBINES INSTALLED AT STEBBINS SITE 1.........................14 5.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 - (4) NP100 TURBINES INSTALLED AT STEBBINS SITE 2.........................15 5.4 ALTERNATIVE 3 - (1) EWT 52-900 TURBINE INSTALLED AT STEBBINS SITE 1..................15 5.5 ALTERNATIVE 4 - (1) EWT 52-900 TURBINE INSTALLED AT STEBBINS SITE 2 ..................16 5.6 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY...........................................................................16 HATTENBURG DILLEY&LINNELLSe September 19 2012 I Engineering Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report 6.0 ECONOMIC EVALUATION...........................................................................................17 6.1 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH......................................................................................17 6.2 ECONOMIC EVALUATION RESULTS.....................................................................................17 7.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE..........................................................................................18 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS............................................................................18 8.1 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL: ALASKA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE (SHPO)........................................................................................................................................18 8.2 WETLANDS: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (DA).................................................................19 8.3 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)....................................................................19 8.4 BIOTIC RESOURCES AND FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES: UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE(USFWS)................................................................19 8.5 CONTAMINATED SITES, SPILLS, AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS .........................20 8.6 ANADROMOUS FISH STREAMS...........................................................................................20 8.7 STATE REFUGES, CRITICAL HABITAT AREAS AND SANCTUARIES......................................20 8.8 LAND OWNERSHIP..............................................................................................................21 8.9 SUBSISTENCE ACTIVITIES....................................................................................................21 8.10 AIR QUALITY......................................................................................................................21 8.11 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT REVIEW (NEPA)............................................21 8.12 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................21 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................23 10.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................24 Figures Figure1: AEA Wind Resource Map................................................................................................ 1 Figure2: Site Map.......................................................................................................................... 2 Figure3: St. Michael Met Tower................................................................................................... 8 Figure4: St. Michael Site 1.......................................................................................................... 10 Figure5: St. Michael Site 2.......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 6: Stebbins Site 1 (Stebbins Met Tower).......................................................................... 12 Figure7: Stebbins Site 2............................................................................................................... 13 Figure 8: NP100 Turbine Installed in Emmonak.......................................................................... 14 September 19 2012 iv HM EngineerinBURG g Consultants � Engineer'ng Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report Tables Table 1: Energy Consumption Data............................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Alternative Comparison Summary.................................................................................. 17 Table 3: Economic Evaluation Summary...................................................................................... 18 Table 4: Environmental Summary Table....................................................................................... 22 Appendices Appendix A: Wind Project Conceptual Design Drawings (12 sheets) Appendix B: V3 Energy's September 2012 Stebbins -St. Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Analysis Appendix C: Stebbins, Alaska Heat Recovery Study Appendix D: Preliminary Office Research Memo and Site Investigation Trip Report Appendix E: Capital Cost Estimates Appendix F: Economic Evaluation Appendix G: CRC Memo titled "Known Archaeological and Historical Sites in the Stebbins Area" September 19, 2012 �/ \ HATT9NBURGDILLEY&LINNELL Engineering Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report ABBREVIATIONS AAC Alaska Administrative Code ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources AEA Alaska Energy Authority AVEC Alaska Village Electric Cooperative B/C Benefit -to -Cost Ratio CRC Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC DA Department of Army EA Environmental Assessment EWT Emergya Wind Technologies ER Environmental Review FAA Federal Aviation Administration FY Fiscal Year FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact °F Degrees Fahrenheit HDL Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell ISER Institute for Social and Economic Research kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt Hour M Million Met Meteorological Mph Miles per hour MWh Megawatt hour NLUR Northern Land Use Research NP100 Northern Power 100 Arctic NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWP Nationwide Permit OEAAA Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis PCE Power Cost Equalization PCN Pre -Construction Notification PLC Programmable Logic Controller PM Particular Matter SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Sec Section SMNC St. Michael Native Corporation USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Services USGS United States Geological Services WASP Wind Atlas and Application Program Yr Year HATTENBURG DILLEY&LINNELLSeptember 19 2012 Vi \Engineering Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 BACKGROUND This report has been prepared for the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) to evaluate alternatives for incorporating wind power into the new power generation system in Stebbins, Alaska. Upgrades to AVEC's power generation facilities are currently underway in Stebbins. The upgrades include construction of a new tank farm and power plant with sufficient storage and capacity to accommodate electrical loading from Stebbins and the neighboring community of St. Michael. An electrical intertie between Stebbins and St. Michael is planned to follow the alignment of the 11-mile long road connecting the two villages. The new power plant and tank farm will be collocated in Stebbins and configured to accommodate future wind turbine generators installed in the preferred location along the intertie route. The wind turbines are necessary to reduce AVEC's dependence on imported diesel fuel and provide an alternate source of renewable energy to rural communities. Preliminary findings included in the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Alaska high resolution wind resource map (Figure 1) indicate that the Stebbins region has a Class 3 wind regime suitable for wind power development. The purpose of this report is to provide AVEC with alternative conceptual design and cost information for developing the wind energy resource in Stebbins. This report includes an assessment of the wind resource, investigation of potential wind turbine locations, wind turbine generator comparison, and economic analysis of the turbine alternatives. ALASKA •Ba — 4" udhoe Bet Wind Power at 50m W/m2 Class 1 - Poor— 200 Class 2 - Marginal 200- 300 Class 3 - Fair 300 - 400 'r 1. ,p'' Class 4 - Good 400 - $00 [ag e s • Cfasa 5 - Excellent 600 - 600 a � STEBBINS "an_tg.i Class 6 - Outstanding 600 - SW s -a •Tok Class 7 - Superb > BOD WGn.11, • Based on 2Q'10 AwS huepaver MeaoMep0 dam. Gleoo.1 `het et o� � 0.4 " " C.. •K and fix- H a "t{a eau DI • rgha " 'a = Uea Kodak Kalcfl!kan a - -Las- o ma t Ms. Figure 1: AEA Wind Resource Map September 19 2012 1 H HEngin eyingRG Consultants , ��•/j� Engineering Co nsuliants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report 2.2 LOCATION The proposed wind turbine project is located near the village of Stebbins on St. Michael Island. Stebbins is located approximately 430 miles northwest of Anchorage, on the south side of Norton Sound on Alaska's west coast. It lies 8 air miles northwest of the village of St. Michael and approximately 125 air miles southeast of Nome. Stebbins is situated at approximately 63°31'02.16" North Latitude and-162°17'04.57 West Longitude (Sec. 02, T023S, R019W, Kateel River Meridian). Year-round access between Stebbins and St. Michael is provided by an 11-mile long gravel road. (See Figure 2). Stebbins is accessible by barge service between June and October. Year-round aircraft access is also available via a 3,000-foot long by 60-foot wide gravel runway in Stebbins and a 4,000-foot long by 75-foot wide gravel runway in St. Michael. Both runways are owned and maintained by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF). Stebbins has a population of 585 residents (2010 U.S. Census Population), with 95.3% being Alaska Native or American Indian. St. Michael has a slightly smaller population of 401 residents (2010 U.S. Census Population). The local residents of both communities depend heavily on the subsistence harvest of fish, seals, beluga whales, walrus, and reindeer. Local economies are based on a mix of commercial fisheries and local wage positions at school, City, and Native Cooperation facilities. TEBBINS SITE 2 STEBBINS SITE 1 t S,TEBBINS _ �..` f— ST. MICHAEL MET TOWER �' (CINDER CONE) MET TOWERw e ,rl.}..s ST. MICHA SITE 1 ---- > -r EXIST �.-- ST. MICHAEL SITE 2 3 ROAD AND ..YY-ECTRICAL INTERTIE �~ sm C 'j Figure 2: Site Map NNELL September 19 2012 2 Hm En ENeering Consultants , �""""`�� Engineering Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report 2.3 CLIMATE Stebbins and St. Michael have a maritime -influenced subarctic climate. Norton Sound is ice -free from June to November and average summer temperatures range from 40 to 60°F. The record high temperature for the region is 77°F. Winters are typically cold and dry; however, wind and blowing snow can create the potential for icing conditions at higher elevations. Average winter temperatures range from -4 to 16°F, with an extreme low temperature of -55°F. Annual precipitation averages 12 inches, with 38 inches of snowfall. 2.4 EXISTING ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS Existina Stebbins Power Plant AVEC's existing Stebbins power plant is located south of the community on the Stebbins Airport. The Stebbins airport is owned and maintained by ADOT&PF. The plant was first energized in 1970 and consists of a 15-foot by 36-foot "Butler Building", wood dock, control module, storage van, crew module, and three pad -mounted transformers. The building and modules are constructed on a mixture of elevated timber post, grade beam, and crib foundations. The "Butler Building" contains the following Cummins generator sets: (1) Cummins 499 kW diesel generator - (Overhauled in 2007) (1) Cummins 350 kW diesel generator - (Age unknown) (1) Cummins 250 kW diesel generator - (Overhauled in 2000) 1,099 kW Total Generation Capacity The power plant also includes generator appurtenances, day tank, miscellaneous tools and equipment, transfer pump, starting batteries, and station service equipment. The building contains an exhaust hood and radiator stand for each generator. The control module contains switch gear, generator controls, desk, and file storage. According to historic AVEC records and Power Cost Equalization (PCE) data, the power plant generated a total of 1,316,100 kWh in 2011 with an average efficiency of 13.75 kWh per gallon of diesel consumed. The existing power plant is old, out -dated, and located on airport property. ADOT&PF is planning an expansion of the existing Stebbins airport and requires the AVEC power plant to be removed from the airport as soon as possible. AVEC has begun construction of a new power plant adjacent to their newly constructed tank farm on the eastern edge of the community. The old power plant and tank farm are scheduled to be decommissioned in the fall of 2013. Existing St. Michael Power Plant The St. Michael power plant is centrally located in the community along Baker Street and the coast of St. Michael's Bay. The plant consists of three modular power generators, separate crew quarters module, and a storage module constructed on wooden sleeper foundations. The power plant generators consist of the following: (1) Cummins 499 kW diesel generator - (7 years old) (1) Detroit Diesel 314 kW diesel generator - (Overhauled in 2006) �Z/` September 19 2012 3 Ley , HATfENBURG DILLEY&LINNELL Engineering Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report (1) Detroit Diesel 207 kW diesel generator - (Overhauled in 2006) 1,020 kW Total Generation Capacity The power plant was first energized in 1970, and the last major generator upgrade occurred when the generators were overhauled in 2006. The power plant generated 1,683,181 kWh of electricity in 2011 with an average efficiency of 14.26 kWh per gallon of diesel consumed. The St. Michael power plant was inspected by Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL) and AVEC representatives on July 11, 2012. The exterior metal surfaces of the modules, pipes, and tanks were aged, pitted, and showed signs of corrosion. The existing power plant and associated tank farm are planned for decommissioning in 2014 once the new Stebbins power plant and electrical intertie are operational. A new standby module will be installed near the existing school to provide temporary power generation for St. Michael in the event of a disruption in the Stebbins power intertie. 2.5 NEW ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS New Stebbins Power Plant The new Stebbins power plant will consist of a 30-foot by 72-foot prefabricated metal building on an elevated steel pipe pile foundation with a concrete slab -on -deck floor system. The plant will be initially equipped with four Caterpillar 3456 diesel generators. The engines are rated at 450kW for prime power and have the highest fuel efficiency in their class. Two of the engines will be retrofit with a marine manifold and turbocharger. The marine conversion approximately doubles the amount of recoverable jacket water heat. The system will be configured to run the marine conversion engines in the winter and the other two engines in the summer. The plant structure has been designed to allow future replacement of up to two of the 3456 engines with 1,050kW rated Caterpillar 3512 units. The new switchgear will have a total of six sections - one for each diesel generator; one for master control; and one for distribution feeder breakers. The switchgear will be fully automatic with paralleling capability and will utilize a programmable logic controller (PLC) to automatically match the running generator(s) to the community load, including monitoring the wind generation. The new switchgear will include a SCADA system for remote monitoring of the generation and distribution systems. A fiber optic data communication cable from the remote wind turbine will allow monitoring and control of the power generation. The new switchgear will provide automatic paralleling and load control of the four generating units. The load control system will monitor the electrical demand on the generators along with wind generation output and automatically select the number of generating units required to meet the demand. The switchgear will automatically start the most efficient combination of engines, bring them up to speed, automatically synchronize the units, and close the generator circuit breakers. When a unit is taken off line, either for maintenance or due to a reduction in electric load, the switchgear will automatically remove the unit from the bus and allow the engine to cool down before shutdown. Generator controls and relaying will provide complete protection and monitoring of each engine -generator and the feeders. September19 2012 4 L,1'V,HEngimURmgCLLIt.ntLINNELL , �L�� Engin er�ng Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report A simplistic one -line diagram of the integration between the new power plant and the wind turbines is included on Sheet E.1, Appendix A. Intertie The proposed electrical intertie between Stebbins and St. Michael consists of approximately 11 miles of new overhead 25kV and 15kV conductors installed parallel to the existing road alignment. Approximately 170 new direct -set power poles will be constructed along 6 miles of the road from the new Stebbins power plant to the existing fresh water pump house located at the St. Michael water source, approximately 1.9 miles west of the St. Michael Airport. The intertie will connect to the existing power poles at the pump house that extend to the St. Michael power grid. New line poles are anticipated to be 40-foot high, Class 4, timber poles embedded 8 feet below grade to resist movement from seasonal frost jacking. New dead-end or riser poles are anticipated to be 45-foot high, Class 1, timber poles embedded to a depth of 9 feet below grade. The poles will be spaced approximately 200 feet apart and will be equipped with 10-foot cross arms to accommodate the new conductors. The existing power poles extending from the pump house to the St. Michael power grid will be retrofitted with new cross arms and braced as required to carry the new conductors. St. Michael Stand-by Generator The proposed intertie project also includes installation of a new standby generator adjacent to the existing St. Michael School tank farm. The standby unit will provide temporary power to St. Michael in the event of a disruption in power through the Stebbins intertie. The proposed generator is anticipated to be a 750 kW, 1020 Hp genset with appropriate switch gear, heat exchanger, radiator, and exhaust system. The generator will connect to an existing 30,000 gallon diesel, double -walled, skid -mounted tank located in the school district's tank farm. Use of this tank is shared between the Bering Strait School District (BSSD) and AVEC per a 2008 Memorandum of Understanding. The memorandum stipulates that 15,000 gallons of diesel in the tank is available for AVEC's stand-by generator. 2.6 ELECTRICAL DEMAND Historical data from AVEC and the AEA Alaska Power Cost Equalization Program (PCE) report was analyzed to determine trends in the Stebbins and St. Michael energy consumption. The PCE program is a reliable source of historic power, fuel consumption, and energy cost information for rural communities throughout the state. The PCE program provides funding subsidies to electric utilities in rural Alaskan communities in order to lower energy costs to customers. This program pays for a portion of the kilowatt hours sold by the participating utility. The exact amount paid varies per location and is determined by the amount of energy generated and sold, the amount of fuel used to generate electricity, and fuel costs. Each year, AEA publishes PCE program information including fuel consumption, power generation and sales, and electricity rates for eligible communities. During the fiscal year 2011 (July 1, 2010 to June 30 2011), 146 residential and community facilities in Stebbins were eligible to receive PCE assistance. Stebbins customers received funding for 47.2% of kilowatt hours sold and had electricity rates reduced from an average of 55.19 cents per kilowatt hour to 20.72 September 19 2012 5 ■1y �H EngineeringRG Consul , �`/L Engineering Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report cents per kilowatt hour. St. Michael customers received funding for 43.3% of kilowatt hours sold and had electricity rates reduced from an average of 54.36 cents per kilowatt hour to 20.68 cents per kilowatt hour. V3 Energy further analyzed the electrical loading in their Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Analysis (Appendix B). The analysis included review of AVEC's 15 minute interval loading data for Stebbins and St. Michael from December 2010 to December 2011. See Appendix B for loading profiles. The calculated average load was 367 kW, with a peak recorded load of 662 kW, and an average daily demand of 8,806 kWh. Table 1 provides additional energy consumption data for both communities. Assuming that the combined community demand for power will increase linearly with a 2% average population growth rate, it is estimated that the power generation system will experience an average power demand of 547 kW, a peak power demand of 983 kW, and an average daily energy demand of 13,086 kWh in the year 2032. Table 1: Energy Consumption Data Average Peak kWh Customers Community Total Diesel Fuel Used kWh Load Load (Residential Gallons Cost ($) Average Diesel KWhs Sold and Fuel Price Efficiency Community ($/gallon) (kWh/gallon) Facilities) Stebbins 1,316,100 101,003 407,042 4.03 13.75 159 289 146 St. Michael 1,683,181 124,553 j 526,859 4.23 14.26 204 370 113 *Source: 2011 AVECAnnual Generation Report AVEC Operations Personnel, and Annual PCE Report FY2011 2.7 STEBBINS RECOVERED HEAT POTENTIAL The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), in cooperation with AVEC, has investigated the existing and proposed thermal loads for community facilities within 500 feet of the new Stebbins power plant. ANTHC modeled the thermal loads and prepared a study for heat recovery from the new power plant. ANTHC's Heat Recovery Study is included in Appendix C. A summary of the average, minimum, and maximum thermal loads is included in V3 Energy's Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Analysis (Appendix B) and is used as the basis for the cost projections included in the economic modeling. Below is a summary description of the proposed heat recovery system. • The heat recovery system will capture jacket water heat generated by the AVEC diesel generators that would otherwise be rejected to the atmosphere by the radiators. The heat will be used to offset heating fuel consumption at community facilities, referred to as end -user buildings. • The proposed system will provide recovered heat to a total of six end -user buildings, including the existing water treatment plant, new water treatment plant, washeteria, clinic, headstart building, and school. LINNELL September 19 2012 6 Lr1�,H EngineeringRG LEY<ents , i"`/�.� Enginee nng Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report • Hot engine coolant will be pumped through heat exchangers located at the power plant. Heat will then be transferred to the recovered glycol heat loop. • Heat recovery supply and return arctic pipe will be routed above and below grade as required to reach the end user buildings. The arctic pipe will have a 4-inch diameter fluid pipe while the branch piping will have a 2-inch diameter fluid pipe. Arctic pipe will consist of steel fluid pipes insulated with polyurethane foam and covered with an HDPE or corrugated steel jacket. • The connection at each end user building will consist of a heat exchanger between the recovered heat loop and the building hydronic system. The connection point will be at the heating return main, upstream of the boiler, to allow the system to "pre -heat" boiler return water. Each end user connection will also include isolation valves, controls, instrumentation, and an energy meter to measure and record the heat transfer. Based on the analysis performed by ANTHC, the six end -user buildings have a total estimated fuel consumption of approximately 69,000 gallons per year and it is estimated the proposed heat recovery system can offset approximately 57,000 gallons of fuel per year. 2.8 CONTRIBUTORS AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION Physical site information contained in this report was gathered by HDL during field investigations and through the use of GPS data, United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, and aerial imagery. Power plant controls, integration assistance, and historical electrical load data was provided by AVEC Engineering and Operations departments. V3 Energy provided the Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Analysis. ANTHC provided the Stebbins, Alaska Recovered Heat Study. Thermal load conversions and power plant engineering assistance was provided by Alaska Energy and Engineering. Economic analysis was provided by Northern Economics. St. Michael and Stebbins Community data was obtained from the Alaska Community Database available at www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF CIS.htm 2.9 LIMITATIONS This report, titled Stebbins Wind Project Concept Design Report, is intended for the exclusive use of AVEC in support of a grant funding request for design and permitting a wind tower project in Stebbins, Alaska. Design information contained herein is conceptual for planning and budgetary cost estimation purposes only. Information contained in this report is not intended for the use of any other party or organization. HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL September 19, 2012 7 I-M Engineering Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report 3.0 WIND DATA ACQUISITION AND MODELING 3.1 DATA ACQUISITION On July 21, 2010, AVEC installed a 30 meter tall meteorological (met) tower on top of a steep volcanic rock outcrop, or cinder cone, located adjacent to the road at the approximate midpoint between Stebbins and St. Michael (See Sheet G1.03, Appendix A). The met tower location is owned by St. Michael Native Corporation (SMNC) and is used as a gravel source for St. Michael. The tower collected wind data at this location until September 19, 2011 (14 months). The met tower was equipped with three separate anemometers, a wind vane, and a temperature sensor. Two of the anemometers were installed 28.4 meters above ground level and one was installed 18.6 meters above ground level. The collected data was stored on a data logger mounted to the base of the met tower. Stored data was downloaded every 3 to 6 months during site visits to inspect the equipment. The quality of the data was generally good with above 95% data recovery. AVEC contracted with V3 Energy to analyze the collected wind and temperature data and calculate wind speed, air density, prevailing wind direction, wind shear, and other factors effecting wind energy production. The data collection process and modeling results are further defined in V3 Energy's September 2012 Stebbins -St. Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Analysis (Appendix B). In the winter of 2011, the met tower was reinstalled near a potential wind tower location at the intersection of the Stebbins -St. Michael Road and the Stebbins Landfill Access Road. The met tower was relocated because the St. Michael met tower site is used as a gravel source by SMNC and the corporation is unwilling to release the land for wind farm development. At the time of this report, the met tower is still recording data at the new location and data from the new site was not used in the wind modeling presented below. The modeling results will be updated once 12 months of data is collected at the Stebbins met tower location. Figure 3: St. Michael Met Tower September 19 2012 8 I. 1 MTTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL T`j�� Engineering Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report 3.2 WIND MODELING RESULTS The results of V3's wind modeling are presented in the Stebbins -St. Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Analysis (Appendix B). The collected wind data depicted a Class 5 (very good) wind resource at the St. Michael met tower site. The modeling was done with WASP modeling software to predict the quality of the wind resource at other nearby locations on St. Michael Island by analyzing the characteristics of the topography and terrain. This information is used to identify optimal locations for wind tower construction and to analyze the effectiveness of wind turbine alternatives on the proposed power generation system. 4.0 STEBBINS WIND SITE ANALYSIS 4.1 WIND SITE INVESTIGATION On September 19, 2011, Mark Swenson (HDL), John Thornley (HDL), Matt Metcalf (AVEC), and Doug Vaught (V3 Energy) traveled to Stebbins to investigate alternative wind tower sites for turbine installation. The site analysis was needed because the wind turbines could not be constructed at the St. Michael met tower site. The purpose of the site visit was to investigate three other potential wind sites identified through an office evaluation of site access, permit requirements, land ownership, and the potential strength of the wind resource using aerial imagery and topographic maps. During the reconnaissance, three sites were preliminarily evaluated for access, terrain, surface geology, and wind patterns. The three sites investigated include St. Michael Site 1, St. Michael Site 2, and Stebbins Site 1, as shown on Sheet G1.03, Appendix A. A memo summarizing the preliminary office research and the trip report for the site investigation is included in Appendix D. Following the field investigation, a fourth site was identified by the wind modeling as having a strong potential wind resource. This site is located on the Cape Stephens Bluff north of Stebbins and is shown as Stebbins Site 2 on Sheet G1.03, Appendix A. An office evaluation of this site was performed to identify the wind turbine construction, permitting, and site control feasibility, but no field investigation was performed. Below is a summary of the investigation at each potential wind turbine site. 4.1.1 St. Michael Site 1 St. Michael Site 1 is located at 63'30'09.56" north latitude, 162°11'23.81' west longitude, at an elevation of approximately 130 feet. This site is located on a rise of land to the south of the Stebbins —St. Michael Road, approximately 0.70 miles southeast of the St. Michael met tower. Ground cover consists of tundra and sparse low alders on dry ground. Subsurface conditions may include shallow to significant soil deposits with warm permafrost. Any rock encountered would likely be frost fractures to varying depths below the surface and may be weathered and friable to depth. Possible foundation types for wind towers at this site include mass gravity mat foundations. Rock anchors may be necessary if volcanics are encountered at shallow depths. Access to the site from the Stebbins -St. Michael road could be easily constructed with no deep fills or significant terrain features to overcome. Wind modeling depicts a potential Class 2/3 LINNELL September 19 2012 9 �- �H EngineeringRG LEYBltants , �Lj�� Engineer ng Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report wind resource at this site. See V3 Energy's September 2012 Stebbins -St. Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Analysis (Appendix B) for wind modeling information. The relatively low potential wind resource at this site makes it an undesirable wind farm location. Therefore, no construction alternatives were analyzed for St. Michael Site 1. Figure 4: St. Michael Site 1 4.1.2 St. Michael Site 2 St. Michael Site 2 is located at 63°30'46.54" north latitude, 162°10'56.31' west longitude, at an elevation of approximately 175 feet. The site is located on a ridge line extending northeast from the cinder cone (St. Michael original met tower location). The ridge was likely formed by a basalt flow from past volcanic events. The reconnaissance group viewed the site from the SMNC gravel source at the top of the cinder cone. The ridge is likely composed of shallow organics and soils above basalt and other volcanics. The underlying rock may be frost fractured at varying depths below the surface and may be weathered and friable to depth. A possible foundation for wind towers at this site includes a mass gravity mat foundation. Rock anchors may be needed if volcanics are encountered at shallow depths. Construction at this site also includes clearing dense patches of alders and constructing a 0.5 mile access trail from the top of the cinder cone to the proposed site. Access trail development requires filling a 20-foot deep ravine between the cinder cone and the ridge line. Also, access easements are required with SMNC for shared use of the existing road to the SMNC material source to the top of the cinder cone. September 19 2012 10 I- �HAngine ring LEYSltants L_ ��.j]� Engineering Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report Figure 5: St. Michael Site 2 Wind modeling depicts a potential Class 4/5 wind resource at this site. See V3 Energy's September 2012 Stebbins -St. Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Analysis (Appendix B) for wind modeling information. The wind resource was sufficient for power generation. This site is not a preferred wind farm location due to the variable terrain and the additional fill volumes required for access trail construction. Therefore, no construction alternatives were analyzed for this site. 4.1.3 Stebbins Site 1 Stebbins Site 1 is located at 63°31'56.58" north latitude, 162'16'50.64" west longitude, at an elevation of approximately 155 feet. The site is located on a ridgeline adjacent to the existing Stebbins -St. Michael Road, near the intersection of the Stebbins -St. Michael Road and the Stebbins Landfill Access Road. Gravel for wind tower road and pad construction is readily available at the Stebbins Native Corporation gravel source, approximately 0.85 miles west of the proposed site. The reconnaissance group walked the terrain and inspected the site. The ground cover at the site is composed of tundra and no ponding or excess moisture was observed. The subsurface conditions may consist of organics and shallow soils overlying basalt and other volcanics. Frost -fractured rock could be encountered at varying depths below the surface and may be weathered and friable to depth. A mass gravity mat foundation may be a viable alternative at this site. Rock anchors may be necessary if the volcanics are encountered at shallow depths. September 19 2012 11 Li1� BHA Engineering CEYBUan—t—s , �'`�L Enginee ng Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report Figure 6: Stebbins Site 1 (Stebbins Met Tower) At the time of the site investigation, Stebbins Site 1 was estimated to be the most promising alternative for wind farm construction due to the even, dry terrain, close proximity to the power plant and gravel source, and easy access trail construction. Alternatives 1 and 3 presented in Section 5.0 below include wind turbine options installed at this site. The extrapolated wind data from the St. Michael Met Tower depicted a potential Class 3/4 wind resource at Stebbins Site 1, which is sufficient for power generation. See V3 Energy's September 2012 Stebbins -St. Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Analysis (Appendix B) for wind modeling information. 4.1.4 Stebbins Site 2 Following the site visit, Stebbins Site 2 was selected as another potential wind turbine location based on the findings of the preliminary wind modeling. The site is located at 63°32'10.43" north latitude, 162°18'14.52" west longitude, and at an approximate elevation of 140 feet. The site is located along the Cape Stephens Bluff on the northwestern tip of St. Michael Island, approximately 0.20 miles west of the Stebbins Gravel Source. Access to the site is from an existing gravel trail extending from the Stebbins Gravel Source to the bluff. An easement or lease will be required from the landowner, the Stebbins Native Corporation. The wind modeling results show that Stebbins Site 2 is an optimal wind turbine location to maximize the available wind resource. The extrapolated wind data from the St. Michael Met Tower depicted a potential Class 5 wind resource for the Stebbins Site 2, with approximately 7.6% more wind energy available than at Stebbins Site 1. See V3 Energy's September 2012 Stebbins -St. Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Analysis (Appendix B) for wind modeling information. No site investigation has occurred and there has been no preliminary geotechnical analysis of the area. Aerial photography depicts the site as dry with tundra and low brush ground cover. The site appears feasible for wind farm construction due to the dry terrain, close proximity to the power plant and gravel source, and easy access trail construction. September 19 2012 12 �- 1� BHA Engineering Consultants ultant LL_ , �`�� Engineering Cons Itants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report Alternatives 2 and 4 presented in Section 5.0 below include wind turbine options installed at this site. Figure 7: Stebbins Site 2 S.0 WIND TURBINE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 5.1 STEBBINS WIND TURBINE ANALYSIS AVEC selected the following two turbine alternatives for evaluation at Stebbins Site 1 and Stebbins Site 2: Northern Power 100 Arctic and EWT 52-900. These turbines were selected because they are direct drive power wind generators with a proven performance record in rural communities and arctic climates. Direct drive generators do not utilize gear boxes and have reduced downtime because they eliminate gear box malfunction. Both configurations are classified as medium wind -diesel penetration systems having a goal to offset 20% to 50% of the community's energy demand with wind power. A medium penetration system provides a balance between the amount of energy provided and the complexity of the wind generation and integration systems. 5.1.1 Northern Power 100 Arctic The first turbine configuration consists of (4) Northern Power 100 Arctic (NP100) turbines. The NP100's are manufactured by Northern Power Systems in Barre, Vermont. The NP100 is a 37-meter high, 100 kW, permanent magnet, synchronous, direct drive wind power generator, with a 21-meter rotor diameter, that AVEC has previously installed in the following rural Alaska villages: • Chevak -400 kW • Emmonak — 400 kW • Gambell — 300 kW • Hooper Bay — 300 kW • Kasigluk — 300 kW • Mekoryuk — 200 kW • Quinhagak — 300 kW • Savoonga — 200 kW September 19 2012 13 MHATTENBURGDILLEY&LINNELL i Engineering Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report • Shaktoolik — 200 kW • Toksook Bay — 400 kW AVEC Total = 3,000 kW Each turbine is equipped with active yaw control, but does not have blade pitch control capability. The (4) proposed Northern Power100 Arctic generators have a maximum cumulative power generation output of 400 kW at a wind speed of 32.4 mph. The turbines are equipped with a 21-meter diameter rotor. Figure 8: NP100 Turbine Installed in Emmonak 5.1.2 EWT 52-900 The second turbine option is the Emergya Wind Technologies (EWT) 52-900 turbine. EWT is an international turbine manufacturer based in the Netherlands, with their American operations based in Bloomington, Minnesota. The EWT 52-900 turbine is a 50-meter (131-foot) high, 900 kW, direct drive generator. The turbines are equipped with a 52-meter diameter rotor. This configuration has a maximum power generation output of 900 kW at a wind speed of 30 mph but can be modulated using blade pitch control down to 250 kW. Pitch control allows the turbine to optimize energy output through a range of wind speeds and to protect the turbine from damage by feathering the blades during extreme wind events. EWT turbines have been successfully installed in Kotzebue and Delta Junction. 5.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 - (4) NP100 TURBINES INSTALLED AT STEBBINS SITE 1 For the purposes of comparision, this alternative proposes installation of (4) NP100 turbines at Stebbins Site 1 for a total cumulative generation capacity of 400 kW. The project includes construction of 1,300 feet of 16-foot wide gravel access trail and (4) 2,600 square foot gravel pads at the wind tower locations. The proposed trail and wind tower pads are anticipated to be 4 feet thick and consist of locally available sands and gravels compacted to 90% maximum NNELL September 19 2012 14 � - �H EngineeringRG Consultants , r7 L/v Engi er'ng Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report density. The drivable surface of the embankment is constructed with 6-inches of crushed aggregate surface course. Topsoil and seed is planned for the embankment slopes to minimize erosion of the placed fill. The turbines are installed on a 37-meter high, conical, monopole tower. The tower foundation is anticipated to include precast concrete gravity mats with rock anchors above shallow volcanic bedrock. Power is delivered from the wind turbines to the new Stebbins power plant by a 1.5 mile long transmission line. Reference Sheet C1.02, Appendix A for a site plan of Alternative 1. The wind farm modeling included V3 Energy's September 2012 Stebbins -St. Michael Wind - Diesel Feasibility Analysis (Appendix B) predicts that this alternative will add 1,093 MWh/year of annual energy production to the Stebbins and St. Michael power generation systems. The construction cost for this alternative is estimated to be $10,551 per installed kW assuming the new power plant is complete and operational. See Capital Cost Estimate included in Appendix E. 5.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 - (4) NP100 TURBINES INSTALLED AT STEBBINS SITE 2 This alternative proposes installation of (4) NP100 turbines at Stebbins Site 2 for a total cumulative generation capacity of 400 kW. The project site is divided by the bluff access trail with two of the wind towers located to the north of the trail and the other two towers located to the south of the trail. The project includes construction of 580 feet of gravel access trail from the bluff trail to the northernmost tower site and 475 feet of gravel access trail to the southernmost tower site. Each tower is installed in the center of a 2,600 square foot gravel pad constructed west of the access trail. The proposed trail is anticipated to be 16 feet wide and 4 feet thick. Embankments and foundations are anticipated to be the same as previously described in Alternative 1. Power is delivered from the wind turbines to the new Stebbins power plant by a 2.3 mile long transmission line. Reference Sheet C1.03, Appendix A for a site plan of Alternative 2. The wind farm modeling included V3 Energy's September 2012 Stebbins -St. Michael Wind - Diesel Feasibility Analysis (Appendix B) and predicts that this alternative will add 1,313 MWh/year of annual energy production to the Stebbins and St. Michael power generation systems. The construction cost for this alternative is estimated to be $10,818 per installed KW assuming the new power plant is complete and operational. See Capital Cost Estimate included in Appendix E. 5.4 ALTERNATIVE 3 - (1) EWT 52-900 TURBINE INSTALLED AT STEBBINS SITE 1 This alternative proposes installation of (1) EWT 52-900 turbine at Stebbins Site 1 for a potential generation capacity of 900 kW. The project includes construction of a 370 foot gravel access trail and 3,000 square foot wind tower pad. The proposed trail and wind tower pad are anticipated to be 4 feet thick and consist of locally available sands and gravels compacted to 90% maximum density. The drivable surface of the embankment is constructed with 6-inches of crushed aggregate surface course. Topsoil and seed is planned for the embankment slopes to minimize erosion of the placed fill. The turbine is installed on a 50-meter high, conical, monopole tower. The tower foundation is anticipated to include precast concrete gravity mats with rock anchors above shallow volcanic bedrock. The EWT tower is anticipated to require a September 19 2012 15 eHEngin eying LEY<ants - - - --- ------- - , Engi ng Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report larger foundation than the NP100 turbines due to increased reaction forces from the larger tower height and longer blade diameters. Power is delivered from the wind turbines to the new Stebbins power plant by a 1.3 mile long transmission line. Reference Sheet C1.05, Appendix A, for a site plan of Alternative 3. The wind farm modeling included V3 Energy's September 2012 Stebbins -St. Michael Wind - Diesel Feasibility Analysis (Appendix B) and predicts that this alternative will add 2,568 MWh/year of annual energy production to the Stebbins and St. Michael power generation systems. The construction cost for this alternative is estimated to be $5,417 per installed KW assuming the new power plant is complete and operational and 900 kW of power is delivered from the new turbine. See Capital Cost Estimate included in Appendix E. 5.5 ALTERNATIVE 4 - (1) EWT 52-900 TURBINE INSTALLED AT STEBBINS SITE 2 This alternative proposes installation of (1) EWT 52-900 turbine at Stebbins Site 2 with 900 kW of generation capacity. The turbine is located south of the bluff access trail. The project includes construction of 140 feet of gravel access trail from the bluff trail to the tower site. The turbine is installed in the center of a 3,000 square foot gravel pad constructed at the end of the access trail. The proposed trail is anticipated to be 16 feet wide and 4 feet thick. Embankments and foundations are anticipated to be the same as previously described in Alternative 3. Power is delivered from the wind turbines to the new Stebbins power plant by a 2.1 mile long transmission line. Reference Sheet C1.06, Appendix A for a site plan of Alternative 4. The wind farm modeling included V3 Energy's September 2012 Stebbins -St. Michael Wind - Diesel Feasibility Analysis (Appendix B) and predicts that this alternative will add 3,047 MWh/year of annual energy production to the Stebbins and St. Michael power generation systems. The construction cost for this alternative is estimated to be $5,556 per installed kW assuming the new power plant is complete and operational and 900 kW of power is delivered from the new turbine. See Capital Cost Estimate included in Appendix E. 5.6 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY Table 2 below summarizes the capital costs and estimated annual energy production for each turbine alternative. INNELL September 19, 2012 16 iM �- � EngineerSURGing Consultants ■ � En neer n Con ultan[s__ Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report Table 2: Alternative Comparison Summary Estimated Annual Estimated Capital Energy Production Generation Estimated Cost per Installed @ 100 Alt Turbine Selection Site Capacity (kW) Capital Cost kW Availability 1 (4) NP 100's Stebbins 1 400 $4.22 M $10,551 1,081 MWh 2 (4) NP 100's Stebbins 2 400 $ 4.33 M $10,818 1,297 MWh 3 (1) EWT 52-900 Stebbins 1 900 $4.88 M $5,417 2,568 MWh 4 (1) EWT 52-900 Stebbins 2 900 $5.00 M $5,556 3,047 MWh *Source: Annual Energy Production data taken from V3 Energy's September 2012 Stebbins -St. Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Analysis 6.0 ECONOMIC EVALUATION 6.1 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH The Stebbins -St. Michaels Wind Diesel Feasibility Analysis prepared by V3 Energy (Appendix B) includes an economic analysis of the combined Stebbins -St. Michael power generation system using the HOMER energy modeling software for the turbine alternatives. The software was configured for a medium to high penetration system with the first priority to meet the community's electrical demands and the second priority to serve the recovered heat system through a secondary load controller (electric boiler). The analysis considered an average diesel fuel price of $4.69 per gallon for the projected 20-year project life. The modeling assumptions and results of V3's analysis are presented in Appendix B. V3's economic analysis was provided to Northern Economics, Inc. for evaluation and comparison to AEA's standard modeling approach that is used for scoring wind project design and construction grant applications. AEA's standard economic modeling software is similar to the program developed by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER). Northern Economics' analysis considers the capital cost of construction and annual cost of operating and maintaining the wind turbines and weighs them against the benefit cost savings realized from the volume of displaced diesel fuel required for power generation and heating public facilities. The analysis develops a benefit/cost ratio that can be used to compare wind turbine alternatives. See Northern Economics' Stebbins -St. Michael Wind Project Evaluation Report included in Appendix F. 6.2 ECONOMIC EVALUATION RESULTS Table 3 below summarizes the findings of the Northern Economics' Inc. economic evaluation for each turbine alternative. HA EYBL September 19, 2012 17 I- Engineering Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report Table 3: Economic Evaluation Summary Annual Power Thermal Wind Wind as % Wind as % Generation: Generation: Generation Wind Wind Total Total Fuel Heating Fuel @ 80% Energy Energy Power Thermal Displaced by Displaced by Benefit/ Cost Alt Availability For Power For Heat Production Production Wind Energy Wind Energy Ratio (kWh) (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) (%) (%) (gal/yr) (gal/yr) 1 1 865,186 813,492 54,607 1 25 3 53,519 1,764 0.84 2 1,038,372 962,579 79,478 29 4 63,328 2,567 0.98 3 2,054,400 1,268,100 593,384 33 27 83,428 19,165 1.35 4 2,437,600 1 1,448,423 807,227 36 1 35 1 95,291 26,072 1.49 *Source: Northern Economics Inc. Stebbins -St. Michael Proposed Wind Project Economic Evaluation Report 7.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Based on the findings of the site analysis, wind modeling, and economic evaluation, Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative for Stebbins wind turbine development. This alternative consists of construction of (1) EWT 52-900 turbine at Stebbins Site 2, on Cape Stephens Bluff. The turbine has a 900 kW generation capacity, which exceeds the current combined electrical load for Stebbins and St. Michael. The economic evaluation above assumes that the turbine operates at the 900 kW energy output level. However, for better system performance, the turbine should be modulated down to an energy output level that provides medium penetration to the Stebbins -St. Michael grid and adequate excess energy to meet recovered heat demands. The recommended energy output level will be determined during final design of the control system. 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 8.1 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL: ALASKA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE (SHPO) Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC (CRC) conducted a review of the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (AHRS) files at Stebbins Site 1 (Ridge Site) and Stebbins Site 2 (Bluff Site). According to the AHRS files there are no known AHRS sites within the project areas for these sites. However, there are known sensitive sites located adjacent to the project areas of interest, including one site listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In 2009 Northern Land Use Research (NLUR) completed an archaeological survey of potential materials sources in Stebbins and St. Michael. Their research included two sites located north of Stebbins in the immediate vicinity of the project areas of interest. According to NLUR's findings, no known cultural resources were found in the sites investigated. Based on existing AHRS information and the findings of NLUR's site investigation, there is a relatively low probability of undiscovered archaeological and historic sites within the actual project areas of interest. Per the recommendation of Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC, the undertaking would need to be reviewed by the State gNnLL September 19, 2012 18 HEneering CWutants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report Historic Preservation Office, but further field surveys will likely not be required at either of these two sites. CRC Analysis is included in Appendix G. 8.2 WETLANDS: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (DA) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a permit for placement of fill in wetlands and waters of the United States. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database does not have data for the Stebbins area. Satellite imagery and notes from field reconnaissance of three sites (Stebbins Site 1 and St. Michael Sites 1 & 2) in September, 2011 indicate those sites are drier than surrounding tundra. Stebbins Site 2 was not investigated at that time, but topography and satellite imagery suggest relatively dry conditions. However, the DA will likely require a wetlands delineation with current wetland data before providing a Jurisdictional Determination. If the DA concludes the project site contains wetlands under their jurisdiction, a new Nationwide Permit (NWP) issued in 2012 for Land Based Renewable Energy Generation Facilities (NWP 51) authorizes discharge of fill for wind tower construction if loss of wetlands does not exceed 1/2 acre. Submittal requirements for NWP 51 include a Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) and wetland delineation report documenting project impacts. NWP 51 also covers utility lines, roads, and parking lots within the wind generation facility. Access roads and transmission lines not within the facility and used to connect the facility to existing infrastructure require separate permitting. NWP 12 (Utility lines) and 14 (Linear transportation) may be used for this purpose if loss of wetlands does not exceed one-half acre for each permit type. If a wetlands delineation is required, the DA recommends that it is completed within the designated growing season for specific regions. Stebbins is located within Alaska's Subarctic Coastal Plains Ecoregion, which has a growing season that begins on May 23rd and ends on October 3rd. 8.3 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) Based on preliminary review of the online Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (OEAAA) tool, all sites under consideration exceed CFR Title 14 Part 77 Notice Criteria for slope ratio. Part 77 regulations require an airspace study and filing form 7460-1 for the proposed tower locations to determine that there is no hazard to air navigation. Preliminary coordination has already occurred with the FAA concerning the met tower at Stebbins Site 1. The FAA issued a "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for a Temporary Structure" on October 27, 2011 for the Stebbins met tower. Further coordination will be required and may include modifications to the published traffic procedures at the Stebbins Airport to keep patterning aircraft south of the airport and away from the proposed tower locations. 8.4 BIOTIC RESOURCES AND FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES: UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) The USFWS lists the spectacled eider as a threatened species. Review of the USFWS Endangered Species Act Consultation Guide indicates all wind tower sites under consideration are located in LINNELL September 19 2012 19 HA Engineering Consultants EnE eer ng Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report a zone designated as spectacled eider breeding habitat; however, no sites are within the zone designated as Critical Habitat. Spectacled eiders typically nest on coastal tundra near shallow ponds or lakes, usually within 10 feet of the water. Stebbins Site 1 and 2 are located in upland habitat at elevations above nesting areas. A 2006 report prepared by ABR for AVEC studied bird movements along a proposed powerline intertie corridor between the villages of Stebbins and St. Michael and potential wind turbine locations. The report concluded low risk of injury or death to birds at the Stebbins Site 1 (Ridge Site), which is approximately one mile southeast of Stebbins Site 2 (Bluff Site). Bird movement in this area consists primarily of low flying (<20 meters above ground) passerines and high flying (>50 meters above ground level) cranes and swans, which is above and below the proposed tower height. Tower construction at St. Michael Site 1 and 2 are not recommended for wind tower construction due to their proximity to eider habitat in Clear Lakes area. Tower construction a Stebbins Site 1 and 2 would require informal consultation with USFWS to identify potential effects to listed species and determine whether measures to avoid and minimize effects are necessary. St. Michael Site 1 and 2 may require formal consultation, which may include a Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion from the USFWS. Because an avian survey has been completed for the Stebbins area it is unlikely USFWS will request additional surveys documenting avian species presence and flight patterns. The proposed Stebbins wind tower locations are also adjacent to polar bear critical habitat. The probability of encountering polar bear is low, but the USFWS would likely advise maintaining a voluntary polar bear monitoring plan. USFWS recommends avoiding vegetation clearing for regions throughout the state of Alaska. For the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region the following avoidance periods apply: • Shrub and Open Habitat — May 5th through July 25th (except in habitat that supports Canada geese, swan, and black scoter) • Canada geese and swan habitat — April 20th through July 25th • Black scoter habitat — May 5th through August 10th 8.5 CONTAMINATED SITES, SPILLS, AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS A search of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's (ADEC) contaminated sites database revealed no contaminated sites within any of the sites considered. 8.6 ANADROMOUS FISH STREAMS There are no cataloged anadromous streams located between the villages of Stebbins and St. Michael, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Anadromous Waters Catalog. LINNELL September 19 2012 20 FM EngineerinBURG g LLEY<ants , Enginee ng Cons Rants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report 8.7 STATE REFUGES, CRITICAL HABITAT AREAS AND SANCTUARIES A REVIEW OF THE ADF&G's publication regarding State of Alaska Refuges, Critical Habitat Areas, and Sanctuaries, found that no such areas are located in the vicinity of any of the sites considered. 8.8 LAND OWNERSHIP The Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs Stebbins Area Use Map and Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Special Management Lands Division indicate Stebbins Site 1 and 2 are located on land owned by the Stebbins Native Corporation within the Stebbins City boundary. St. Michael Site 1 and 2 are located on land owned by St. Michaels Native Corporation. Negotiations with the Stebbins Native Corportation will be required for site control of Stebbins Site 1 and Stebbins Site 2. 8.9 SUBSISTENCE ACTIVITIES Coordination with Stebbins community members will be needed to ensure there is little to no disruption of hunting and harvesting activities from wind farm development. Preliminary discussions with community members indicate that Stebbins Site 1 is not used for subsistence activities. There is reported berry picking activities in the area of Stebbins Site 2. The final location of the towers will be coordinated with the community during design to minimize impacts to subsistence activities. 8.10 AIR QUALITY According to Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 18 AAC 50, the communities of Stebbins and St. Michael are considered Class II areas. As such, there are designated maximum allowable increases for particulate matter 10 (PM-10) micrometers or less in size, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. Activities in these areas must operate in such a way that they do not exceed listed air quality controls for these compounds. The nature and extent of the proposed project is not likely to increase emissions or contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard or cause a maximum allowable increase for a Class II area. 8.11 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT REVIEW (NEPA) Construction of the wind tower array would require preparation of an Environmental Review (ER) document. Similar to an Environmental Assessment (EA), an ER will provide an assessment of potential environmental impacts and identify avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) determination by the funding agency will be needed. 8.12 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Table 4 below summarizes environmental data and permit requirements for development of wind turbines on each site investigated. LINNELL September 19 2012 21 F �H EngineeringRG LEV<ants_ , �"`�� Engineering Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report Table 4: Environmental Summary Table Stebbins Site 1 Stebbins Site 2 St. Michael Site 1 St. Michael Site 2 (Ridge) (Bluff) Low potential for impact; No AHRS info; Historic and Archaeological SHPO review required SHPO review required Wetland delineation and Jurisdictional Determination needed; Wetlands NWP 12, 14, & 51 if wetlands impacted and impacts less than % acre. An individual permit will be required for impacts greater than Y2 acre. Form 7460-1; Federal Aviation Administration Traffic patterned altered to Form 7460-1 accommodate MET tower Low risk to flying birds; Moderate to high risk to birds; Threatened & Endangered Species Informal consultation required May require formal consultation Contaminated Sites None located within project areas 8.12.1 Anadromous Fish 8.12.2 None between villages of Stebbins and St. Michael Streams State Refuges, Critical Habitat, and None located near project areas Sanctuaries Stebbins Native Corporation St. Michael Native Corporation Land Ownership AVEC will coordinate with communities to identify areas important to subsistence Subsistence activities. Class II area; Project not likely to increase emissions, contribute to a violation of Air Quality ambient air quality standards, or cause maximum allowable increases for Pm-10 and nitrogen and sulfur dioxide. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact needed from National Environmental Policy Act funding agency September 19, 2012 22 1- iH Engineering Consultants ���L//���� En erin Consultants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report Permit Recommendations 1. Initiate Section 106 consultation for preferred site, in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as soon as possible. 2. File FAA form 7460-1 for wind towers at least 45 days prior to construction. 3. Perform wetlands delineation and obtain Jurisdictional Determination for the preferred site to determine whether Section 404 permitting is necessary. 4. Initiate consultation with USFWS to identify potential effects at the preferred site to threatened or endangered species and possible mitigation. 5. Schedule vegetation clearing activities outside appropriate time periods of avoidance, per the USFWS's recommendations. 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The high cost of diesel fuel and strong wind resource on St. Michael Island makes wind power an attractive component of AVEC's new combined electrical power generation system for Stebbins and St. Michael. The wind site investigation and subsequent wind modeling analysis determined that Stebbins Site 2 has a Class 5 wind resource and is well -suited for wind power generation. Economic evaluation of the turbine alternatives presented in this report resulted in a preferred turbine configuration of (1) EWT-900 turbine installed at Stebbins Site 2. The economic evaluation projected that this preferred alternative will contribute to approximately 36% of total power production and will offset approximately 95,000 gallons of fuel for power generation and 26,000 gallons of heating oil per year. Wind power could provide approximately 35% of the energy needed for heat recovery. Integration of the wind power into the new diesel power plant will require a large secondary load controller to prevent overloading the grid with excess energy and tripping the generators offline. The following actions are recommended to continue the progress of wind turbine development in Stebbins: Recommendations 1. Enter into negotiations with the Stebbins Native Corporation for site control and access rights to Stebbins Site 2. 2. Consult with Stebbins community leaders to minimize the impacts to subsistence activities from wind project development at Stebbins Site 2. 3. Proceed with permitting per the permitting recommendations included in Section 8. 4. Perform a site specific geotechnical investigation of the proposed turbine location. 5. Incorporate a secondary load controller and wind energy integration controls into the new Stebbins power plant design. NNELL September 19 2012 23 �i1� BHA Engineering DI_Consul ants �'L♦L Engi er ng Consu Hants Alaska Village Stebbins Wind Project Electric Cooperative Concept Design Report 6. If complications resulting from site control, permitting, or the geotechnical investigation make development of Stebbins Site 2 not feasible, relocate the proposed wind turbine project to Stebbins Site 1 and reinitiate the actions stated above. 7. Perform final design of the preferred alternative and apply for construction grant funds. 10.0 REFERENCES Alaska Community Database, Community Information Summaries (CIS) http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CIS.cfm?Comm_Boro_Name=Stebbins , accessed on 11/15/2011 Western Regional Climate Center, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.htmI accessed on 12/5/2011 Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2012. Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization Program, Fiscal Year 2011. Twenty Third Edition. April 2012. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 18 AAC 50 Air Quality Control: As Amended through August 1, 2012. http://dec.alaska.gov/commish/regulations/pdfs/18%20AAC%2050.pdf. Last accessed on September 8, 2012. ADEC. Division of Spill Prevention and Response. Last accessed on September 6, 2012. http://dec.alaska.gov/applications/spar/CSPSearch/results.asp. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) Division of Environmental Health and Engineering. Stebbins , Alaska Heat Recovery Study. September 10, 2012. Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). Wildlife Action Plan Section 11113: Alaska's 32 Ecoregions http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/wildlife_action_plan/section3b.pdf. Last accessed on September 6, 2012. ADF&G. Anadromous Waters Catalog. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/SARR/AWC/. Last accessed on September 6, 2012. ADF&G. Refuges, Sanctuaries, Critical Habitat Areas and Wildlife Refuges. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=protected areas. locator. Last accessed on September 7, 2012. ADNR. Division of Special Management Lands. http://www.navmaps.alaska.gov/specialmanagementlands/. Last accessed on September 7, 2012. CRC. Known Archaeological and Historical Sites in the Stebbins Area. August 28, 2012. FAA. Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA). https:Hoeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp012. Last accessed on August 26, 2012. LINNELL September 19 2012 24 H �H_Engin eyingRG LEYBltants , ��./�� Engineer ng Consultants Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Stebbins Wind Project Concept Design Report USACE. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska Region (Version 2.0). http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civiIworks/regulatory/reg_supp/erdc-el_tr- 07-24.pdf. Last accessed on September 6, 2012. USFWS. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species: Listed and Candidate Species in Alaska, Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri). http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/species/spectacled_eider.htm. Last accessed on September 6, 2012. USFWS. Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=74540. Last accessed on September 6, 2012. USFWS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land Clearing Guidance for Alaska: Recommended Time Periods to Avoid Vegetation Clearing. http://al as ka.fws.gov/fisheries/fieIdoffice/anchorage/pdf/vegetation_cl ea ring.pdf. Last accessed on September 7, 2012. USFWS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory. http://107.20.228.18/Wetlands/WetiandsMapper.html# . Last accessed on September 6, 2012. V3 Energy. Stebbins -St. Michael Wind Diesel Feasibility Analysis. September 12, 2012. LINNELL September 19 2012 25 �- �H EngineeringRG LEY<ants , �`/L Engineering Consultants Appendix A Stebbins Wind Project Concept Design Drawings STEBBINS WIND PROJECT CONCEPT DESIGN DRAWINGS STEBBINS, ALASKA STEBBINS, Alaska _Nome wN Bering See O 0 d o . GENERAL Bethel Arctic Ocean Barrow �.• — �Be ode Y Pov6 o Fairbanks Canada b' Anchorage • O Ingham o (Jun Pacific Ocean LOCATION MAP G1.01 COVER SHEET AND LOCATION MAP G1.02 GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS G1.03 PROJECT LAYOUT PLAN AND PROPOSED INTERTIE ROUTE G1.04 STEBBINS PROPERTY OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT C1.01 WIND POWER ALTERNATIVES 1 & 2 LAYOUT PLAN C 1.02 WIND POWER ALTERNATIVE 1 SITE PLAN C1.03 WIND POWER ALTERNATIVE 2 SITE PLAN C1.04 WIND POWER ALTERNATIVES 3 & 4 LAYOUT PLAN C1.05 WIND POWER ALTERNATIVE 3 SITE PLAN C1.06 WIND POWER ALTERNATIVE 4 SITE PLAN C2.01 SECTIONS El ONE -LINE DIAGRAM VICINITY MAP Q Q Z 2 Q w W � O O Z U Q F U W O W Q� W O 3 > Q ? � 2 m Com Q m vW~i COVER SHEET AND LOCATION MAP GENERAL 1. THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. 2. NOT ALL UTILRIES MAY BE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT UTILITIES AT ALL 71MES DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND REPAIR ALL DAMAGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES REQUIREMENTS. J. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN ALL SIGNS, BARRICADES AND WARNING LIGHTS AND OTHER PROTECTIVE DEVICES NECESSARY FOR SAFETY. 4. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, AND STATE AND FEDERAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING WORK WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS, HIS SUBCONTRACTORS, THE OWNER, AND STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES. 6. PERFORM WORK WITH SKILLED CRAFTSMEN SPECIALIZING IN THE REQUIRED WORK. INSTALL ALL MATERIALS IN A NEAT, ORDERLY, AND SECURE FASHION. EARTHWORK CRUSHED AGGREGATE SURFACE COURSE (CASC): SHALL CONSIST OF 1' MINUS NFS MATERIAL WHICH IS FREE OF ORGANIC MATERIAL CONFORMING TO THE FOLLOWING GRADATION: SIEVE X PASSING BY WEIGHT 1' 100X 3/4' 70 — 100X 3/8' 50 — 85x NO. 4 35 — 65X NO. 8 20 — 5OX NO. 50 15 — 30x NO. 200 8 — 15X 2. EMBANKMENT FILL: LOCAL SANDS AND GRAVELS MATERIAL, FREE OF ORGANICS WITH NO GREATER THAN 12X PASSING THE 1200 SIEVE, COMPACTED TO 90X MAX DENSITY. J. COMPACTION: PLACE FILL IN 8' — 12" LIFTS AND COMPACT FILL MATERIAL AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. MAXIMUM DENSITY DETERMINED BY ASTM D-1557 (MODIFIED PROCTOR). 4. WOVEN GEOTEXTILE: WOVEN, BLACK, FUEL RESISTANT, GEOTEXTILE FABRIC. INSTALL W17H 3' MINIMUM OVERLAP AT ALL JOINTS. GEOTEX 250ST, OR APPROVED EQUAL. 5. SEED AND FERTILIZER: 5OX TUNDRA BLUEGRASS 4OX ARCTARED FESCUE, 10X ALYESKA POLAR GRASS BLENDED SEED MIX. APPLICATION RATE a 40 LBS PER ACRE NITROGEN—PHOSPHORUS—POTASSUIM FERTILIZER WITH 14-30-14 RATIO. APPLICATION RATE — 500 LBS PER ACRE ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS ASTM AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING & MATERIALS CASC CRUSHED AGGREGATE SURFACE COURSE CUP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE LBS POUNDS LF LINEAR FOOT MAX MAXIMUM MIN MINIMUM NFS NON —FROST SUSCEPTIBLE NTS NOT TO SCALE R RADIUS TYP TYPICAL 6. CULVERT PIPE; CULVERT PIPING SHALL BE CORRUGATED METAL PIPE MEETING THE z 9 REQUIREMENTS OF AASHTO M-36 WITH DIMENSIONS AS SHOWN ON PLANS. INSTALL z c t� CULVERTS WITH FLANGED END SECTIONS. w o w 2w w = Q gw Z U w>L Z � a TUNDRA PROTECTION 1. VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT MAY NOT BE OPERATED ON UNFROZEN NATIVE VEGETATION w w a & OUTSIDE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE ACCESS TRAIL AND CONSTRUCTION PAD. LEGEND EXISTING PROPERTY UNE SEC77ON LINE — — — — — WIND TOWER CLEAR ZONE �W o Z z a W w o 0 O z U o F- U Lu W J O L1J Lu C) O 3 > g z z m cn m W m � a GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS G1.02 — KK — M ; 10 12 z�N( ,oe N—R,11 —013 0 2000 4000 PROJECT LAYOUT PLAN AND SCALE IN FEET PROPOSED INTERTIE ROUTE SCALE: 1" = 2000' IMAGERY.• AEROMETRIC PHOTO GOOGLE EARTH cn W Q Z Q w W O W O o U �- v W W J 0 W m W 4 0 J > Q z Y 2 m U3 ro m Q ro J a PROJECT LAYOUT PLAN AND PROPOSED INTERTIE ROUTE G1.03 7K 7MRS 3 STEBBINS PROPERTY OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT I NOTES 1. THE PROPERTY LINES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. A FIELD SURVEY MUST BE PREFORMED PRIOR TO ANY DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION. 2. THE STEBBINS — ST. MICHAEL ROAD FALLS UNDER PLOs 601, 757, 1613 & 2665, AMENDMENTS 1 & 2. 100 FEET OF RIGHT —OW —WAY WAS DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC BY THE STEBBINS MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ON JUNE 16, 1993. SEE BOOK 0335, PAGE 117 FOR MORE INFORMATION. J. A SMALL PORTION OF THE STEBBINS — ST. MICHAEL ROAD HAS BEEN DEDICATED TO PUBLIC ACCESS AND UTILITIES. SEE DOCUMENT No. 2010-000180-0 FOR MORE INFORMATION. 4. PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 34, 35 & 36ARE LEASED FOR REINDEER CORRAL SITES. THE LESSOR & LESSEE MUST BOTH SIGN OFF ON ANY NEW EASEMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE PARCELS- 5- USS No. 6000 IS SUBJECT TO A 25—FOORT WIDE TRAIL, LIMITED FOR TRAVEL BY FOOT, ANIMALS AND SMALL ALL—TERAINE VEHICLES (LESS THAN 3,000 LBS.) AND EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTION SURROUNDING THE US COAST GUARD NAVIGATION AID (CAPE STEPHENS LIGHT). SEE BOOK 0328, PAGE 539 FOR MORE INFORMATION. KATEEL RIVER MERIDIAN STEBBINS, ALASKA, NOME RECORDING DISTRICT N Z o 1= P LL 0 to Z Z 0 U JF E LLJ 2 Z 2 $ z w w -r$ UOz m � 7 ryi Z Z m r c F Z rc t 0 V Q J a a w � c m mLLI = a gw Z Z U O � 6 a w as OZ � w m R 8 W Q Q Q) ir W W CL o O W O z U o H (ii W W J O Lu 0:� W CL C) 5. Q z u� Z , m -c� w cn a STEBBINS PROPERTI OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT G 1.04 -79: I- rvo— 1 1-0 Z O 20 O to zz O v E Z r Z Z Z W W � q 0 0 2 a } C 2 2 C i O Z V w a w o W � m O] C F LLJ W W O Q W Z U f z i 2 z �'o" w a 88 U � W w o > z Q c� cr w w o n- O w U Z U C F- U W W J O Lu � W CL 0 S / Q V) z Y Z Com m a (r) a WIND POWER ALTERNATIVES 1 & 2 LAYOUT PLAN C1.01 .wx KK �EcMRS J0B Nuweca.11 013 3 z a w W o 0O O Z U o H U W W J O W � W O 3 > g m 03 m m c~n a v WIND POWER ALTERNA71VE 1 SR£ PLAN C 1.02 w o Z O R U D Z Z O U J W « U H Z C W w aQ} N z_ 2ca m - C = Z z t O ~ Z �V u�aw o a m m C F Z — Z {yr� C w 10 QLL w Z z� aO s LU $ E Zww ry¢qq z 3 ¢ a w y a $ v 3 w o Z 2 Q CC W W o tZ O W OU z U o W J O LU W CL CI ? J Z � 2 m C13 m W � Q � WIND POWER ALTERNATIVE 2 SITE PLAN C 1.03 J0B �0��:11-013 3 U� w s > g w o > Z Q QD W W o 0O - O w U z U o � H w W J 0 W W C) J 00 2 m Lo �l W Q WIND POWER ALTERNATIVES 3 & 4 LAYOUT PLAN C1.04 —KK —w; aoe x�waex:1 1-01 3 v Lu V 1 LU W 0- a 0 CL W O z CU o H LU a w 0 C w C� Z � z m C'n W m � a � WIND POWER ALTERNATIVE 3 Si£ PLAN C1.05 T 11-013 o8 z O RU D 85 z O U F<1 E Z X' z Z 8 Z C W W p� 7 a)Z Z m r C F Z K c 0 0o �5z o 0) a w C ca Z C F Cw wU W w w = 4 =w Z U Z N Q a W } U Z W w y'y Z W W Sy Lu CLU Z � Q LU W o il- 0 W Q z U o H U W 0 W W C� ? J Uj 3 � m �m m WIND POWER ALTERNA77VE 4 S!i£ PLAN w EQUIPMENT LIMITS WIND TOWER FOUNDATION 52.0' PRECAST CONCTRETE I WIND TOWER FOUNDATION i 12 11011 dII __ II II II II Z II II II II � II II II II EXISTING o WOVEN GROUND 7GEOTEXTILE u ul �I II II II ROCK ANCHORS, TYPICAL I I uu uu A PAD SECTION C2.01 SCALE: 1" = 5.0' INSTALL 30" CMP CULVERT WHERE SHOWN ON PLANS EXISTING GROUND WOVEN GEOTEXTILE TRAIL SECTION SCALE: 1" — &0' EQUIPMENT LIMITS WIND AREA ACCESS TRAIL 8.0' 8.0' 2 2 1� �l z EMBANKMENT FILL COMPACTED TO 90% MAX DENSITY 6" CASC COMPACTED TO 95% MAX DENSITY ACCESS TRAIL 8.0' I 8.0' — EMBANKMENT FILL COMPACTED TO 90% MAX DENSITY 6" CASC COMPACTED TO 95% MAX DENSITY 2 �1 ;L a� z O R U D 85 z OF z� z 2 z� w w > cN z C t a z �V u�aw oa m� W 2 ¢ z w x $ g� Z b <a w z R 4 Z W W y' 7 z K w y a g m z o Z z a 0 W W O O p W U z U O F U W W J W Q. W 3 J ? � 2 ELI m J m W ALTERNATES 1 do 2 PROJECT LOCATION C2.01 =KK E�MRS '9 10 12 51 = � 200' 12.47/7.2kV OVERHEAD DISTRIBUTION i i ;IRCUIT BREAKER. TYP STEP UP RANSFORMER 80/277V TO 12.47/7.2kV 60Hz, 30 UP DRMER 7V TO 7.2kV 30 ............................ ONE —LINE DIAGRAM —x. IanionM Appendix B Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study September 12, 2012 Douglas Vaught, P.E. dvaught@v3energy.com V3 Energy, LLC Eagle River, Alaska V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page I i This report was prepared by V3 Energy, LLC under contract to Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. to assess the technical and economic feasibility of installing four Northern Power 100 Arctic model turbines or one EWT 52-900 turbine in the village of Stebbins to serve a combined Stebbins -St. Michael load. This analysis is part of a conceptual design report and final project design funded by the Renewable Energy Fund, which is administered by the Alaska Energy Authority. Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1 Stebbinsand Saint Michael.......................................................................................................................1 SaintMichael Wind Resource.......................................................................................................................2 MeasuredWind Speeds............................................................................................................................3 Temperatureand Density.........................................................................................................................4 WindRoses................................................................................................................................................4 Wind -Diesel System Design and Equipment.................................................................................................5 Power -producing Equipment........................................................................................................................... 6 DieselPower Plant....................................................................................................................................6 WindTurbines...........................................................................................................................................6 NorthernPower 100 ARCTIC................................................................................................................. 6 Emergya Wind Technologies EWT 52-900............................................................................................7 ElectricLoad..............................................................................................................................................7 ThermalLoad............................................................................................................................................8 DieselGenerators.....................................................................................................................................9 WAsPModeling.............................................................................................................................................9 TurbineSite Options...............................................................................................................................10 Stebbins Site 1: Stebbins met tower area...........................................................................................12 Stebbins Site 2: Cape Stephens Bluff Area..........................................................................................15 WindFarm Modeling Results..................................................................................................................17 EconomicAnalysis.......................................................................................................................................18 WindTurbine Costs.................................................................................................................................18 FuelCost..................................................................................................................................................18 ModelingAssumptions...........................................................................................................................18 Stebbins Site 1, 100% Wind Turbine Availability....................................................................................21 Stebbins Site 1, 80% Wind Turbine Availability......................................................................................21 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page I ii Stebbins Site 2, 100% Wind Turbine Availability....................................................................................22 Stebbins Site 2, 80% Wind Turbine Availability......................................................................................22 Conclusion and Recommendations............................................................................................................ 23 Appendix A: WASP modeling report of four Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines at Stebbins Site 1 ..... 24 Appendix B: WAsP modeling report of one EWT 52-900 turbine at Stebbins Site 1..................................25 Appendix C: WAsP modeling report of four Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines at Stebbins Site 2......26 Appendix D: WAsP modeling report of one EWT 52-900 turbine at Stebbins Site 2..................................27 Appendix E: Homer System Report of four Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines at Stebbins Site 1.......28 Appendix F: Homer System Report of one EWT 52-900 turbine at Stebbins Site 1................................... 29 Appendix G: Homer System Report of four Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines at Stebbins Site 2 ......30 Appendix H: Homer System Report of one EWT 52-900 turbine at Stebbins Site 2...................................31 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.35.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Introduction Page I 1 Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is the electric utility for the City of Stebbins and the City of Saint Michael. AVEC was awarded a grant from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to complete feasibility and design work for installation of wind turbines, with planned construction in 2014. Stebbins and Saint Michael Stebbins has a population of 585 people while Saint Michael has a population of 401 people (2010 census). Both villages are located on Saint Michael Island in Norton Sound, 125 miles southeast of Nome and 48 miles southwest of Unalakleet. The villages have a subarctic climate with maritime influences during the summer. Summer temperatures average 40' to 60 °F; winters average -4° to 16 *F. Extremes from -55' to 70 °F have been recorded. Annual precipitation averages 12 inches, with 38 inches of snow. Summers are rainy and fog is common. Norton Sound is typically ice free from early June to mid -November. A fortified trading post called "Redoubt St. Michael" was built by the Russian -American Company at Saint Michael in 1833; it was the northernmost Russian settlement in Alaska. The Native village of "Tachik" stood to the northeast. When the Russians left Alaska in 1867, several of the post's traders remained. "Fort St. Michael," a U.S. military post, was established in 1897. During the gold rush of 1897, it was a major gateway to the interior via the Yukon River. As many as 10,000 persons were said to live in Saint Michael during the gold rush. Saint Michael was also a popular trading post for Eskimos to trade their goods for Western supplies. Centralization of many Yup'iks from the surrounding villages intensified after the measles epidemic of 1900 and the influenza epidemic of 1918. The village remained an important trans -shipment point until the Alaska Railroad was built. The city government was incorporated in 1969. A federally -recognized tribe is located in Saint Michael, the Native Village of Saint Michael. In Stebbins, the analogous entity is the Stebbins Community Association. Stebbins' and Saint Michael's population is largely Yup'ik Eskimo and many residents are descendants of Russian traders. Seal, beluga whale, moose, caribou, fish, and berries are important staples. The sale and importation of alcohol is banned in both villages. Stebbins and Saint Michael are accessible only be air and sea but are connected to each other with a 10.5 mile road. Both villages have airports and a seaplane base is available. Regular and charter flights are available from Nome and Unalakleet. Saint Michael is near the Yukon River Delta and has a good natural harbor but no dock. Lighterage service is provided on a frequent basis from Nome. Both villages receive at least one annual shipment of bulk cargo. At present Saint Michael and Stebbins are not connected electrically with a power distribution intertie, but a project to do so is planned for the near future. The electrical intertie will follow the road connecting the two villages. Note: Information above obtained from Alaska Community Database Community Information Summaries at www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF CIS.htm. V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 12 Saint Michael Wind Resource A met tower was installed on an extinct cinder cone located on Saint Michael Native Corporation land near the road that connects Saint Michael to the village of Stebbins to the west. The site is large enough to accommodate two to three wind turbines, but current land use planning by the corporation reserves the site area (the cinder cone) for mining of lava basalt for construction activities. Although the site is not at present near electrical distribution lines, near -term plans call for construction of an intertie adjacent to the road between Saint Michael and Stebbins. Saint Michael rnet tower data synopsis Data dates Wind power class Power density mean, 28.4 m Wind speed mean, 28.4 m Max. 10-min wind speed average Maximum 2-sec. wind gust Weibull distribution parameters Wind shear power law exponent Roughness class IEC 61400-1, 3`d ed. classification Turbulence intensity, mean Calm wind frequency, 28.4 m Topographic rnap July 21, 2010 to September 19, 2011 (14 months) Low Class 5 (excellent) 435 W/mz 6.73 m/s 24.7 m/s 29.8 m/s (Feb. 2011) k = 2.03, c = 7.70 m/s 0.116 (low) 0.60 (snow surface) Class III-c 0.081 (at 15 m/s) 26% (wind speeds <4 m/s) I� ys3 *A paw e} f t"T _i P _ 3 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Google Earth image Pugs 13 Measured Wind Speeds Anemometer data collected from the met tower, from the perspectives of mean wind speed and mean wind power density, indicates an excellent wind resource. Note that cold temperatures contributed to a higher wind power density than otherwise might have been expected for the mean wind speeds. Anemometer data summary Variable Speed 28.4 m A Speed 28.4 m B Speed 18.6 m Measurement height (m) 28.4 28.4 18.6 Mean wind speed (m/s) 6.73 6.71 6.39 MMM wind speed (m/s) 6.85 6.78 6.49 Max 10-min wind speed (m/s) 24.6 24.7 22.7 Max gust wind speed (m/s) 29.8 29.8 29.1 Weibull k 1.84 1.82 1.82 Weibull c (m/s) 7.58 7.56 7.19 Mean power density (W/m2) 412 414 361 MMM power density (W/m2) 435 428 376 Mean energy content (kWh/m2/yr) 3,606 3,629 3,166 MMM energy content (kWh/m2/yr) 3,812 3,752 3,296 Energy pattern factor 2.12 2.16 2.17 Frequency of calms (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1-hr autocorrelation coefficient 0.934 0.931 0.934 Diurnal pattern strength 0.022 0.023 0.027 Hour of peak wind speed 19 19 16 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Time seriesgraph 10 a 2 a Jul Aug - Sep Oct NOV Dec Page 14 - Speed 28.4 m A - Speed 28.4m8 =^ - Speed 18.6 m Temperature and Density Saint Michael experiences cool summers and cold winters with resulting higher than standard air density. Calculated air density during the met tower test period exceeds standard air density at 80 meters elevation (1.216 Kg/m3) by 4.5 percent. Temperature and density table Temperature Air Density Month Mean Min Max Min Max (IC) (*C) (`C) (Mean (kg/m3) / (kg/m3) (kg/m3) Jan -8.0 -27.3 4.8 1.313 1.251 1.414 Feb -10.6 -30.2 2.9 1.325 1.259 1.431 Mar -7.2 -18.6 5.3 1.307 1.248 1.366 Apr -4.4 -21.0 10.0 1.294 1.228 1.379 May 6.1 -4.9 21.4 1.245 1.180 1.296 Jun 12.7 5.8 22.1 1.216 1.177 1.246 Jul 13.1 6.2 22.9 1.214 1.172 1.244 Aug 13.8 7.6 24.6 1.215 1.168 1.259 Sep 10.7 1.4 20.1 1.224 1.185 1.266 Oct 2.4 -4.8 9.3 1.261 1.231 1.295 Nov -3.2 -14.3 7.1 1.288 1.240 1.343 Dec -13.4 -25.0 0.5 1.339 1.270 1.401 Annual 1.0 -30.2 24.6 1.270 1.168 1.431 Wind Roses Wind frequency rose data indicates highly directional winds principally from the north-northeast with easterly and southerly winds to a lesser extent. The mean value rose indicates that southeasterly winds, V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study P a g e Is when they do occur, are of high energy and hence are storm winds. The wind energy rose indicates that for wind turbine operations the majority of power -producing winds will be north-northeast to northeast. Calm frequency (percent of time that winds at the 30 meter level are less than 4 m/s) was 26 percent during the met tower test period. Wind -Diesel System Design and Equipment Wind -diesel power systems are categorized based on their average penetration levels, or the overall proportion of wind -generated electricity compared to the total amount of electrical energy generated. Commonly used categories of wind -diesel penetration levels are low penetration, medium penetration, and high penetration. The wind penetration level is roughly equivalent to the amount of diesel fuel displaced by wind power. Note however that the higher the level of wind penetration, the more complex and expensive a control system and demand -management strategy is required. Cateaories of wind -diesel penetration levels Penetration Penetration Level Operating characteristics and system requirements Instantaneous Average Low 0% to 50% Less than Diesel generator(s) run full time at greater than minimum 20% loading level. Requires minimal changes to existing diesel control system. All wind energy generated supplies the village electric load; wind turbines function as "negative load" with respect to diesel generator governor response. Medium 0%to 100+% 20%to Diesel generator(s) run full time at greater than minimum 50% loading level. Requires control system capable of automatic generator start, stop and paralleling. To control system frequency during periods of high wind power input, system requires fast acting secondary load controller matched to a secondary load such as an electric boiler V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 16 Penetration Penetration Level Operating characteristics and system requirements Instantaneous Average augmenting a generator heat recovery loop. At high wind power levels, secondary (thermal) loads are dispatched to absorb energy not used by the primary (electric) load. Without secondary loads, wind turbines must be curtailed to control frequency. High 0% to 150+% Greater Diesel generator(s) can be turned off during periods of (Diesels -off than 50% high wind power levels. Requires sophisticated new Capable) control system, significant wind turbine capacity, secondary (thermal) load, energy storage such as batteries or a flywheel, and possibly additional components such as demand - managed devices. Power -producing Equipment HOMER energy modeling software was used to analyze the new Stebbins powerplant presently under construction serving a combined Stebbins and Saint Michael load which will be realized when an electrical intertie connecting the two villages is complete. HOMER software was designed to analyze hybrid power systems that contain a mix of conventional and renewable energy sources, such as diesel generators, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, etc. and is widely used to aid development of Alaska village wind power projects. It is a static energy balance model, however, and is not designed to model the dynamic stability of a wind -diesel power system, although it will provide a warning that renewable energy input is potential sufficient to result in system instability. Diesel Power Plant Electric power (comprised of the diesel power plant and the electric power distribution system) in Stebbins is provided by AVEC. The new powerplant will be comprised of four identically rated and configured Caterpillar 3456 diesel generators. New Stebbins powerplant diesel generators Generator Electrical Capacity Diesel Engine Model 1 450 kW Caterpillar 3456 2 450 kW Caterpillar 3456 3 450 kW Caterpillar 3456 4 450 kW Caterpillar 3456 Wind Turbines This project proposes to install four Northern Power Systems Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines for 400 kW installed wind capacity or one EWT 52-900 (or possibly a model 54-900 if the IEC classification of the site is determined to be Class III) for 900 kW installed wind capacity. Northern Power 100 ARCTIC The Northern Power 100 ARCTIC, formerly known as the Northwind 100 (NW100) Arctic, is rated at 100 kW and is equipped with a permanent magnet, synchronous generator, is direct drive (no gearbox), and is equipped with heaters and has been tested to ensure operation in extreme cold climates. The turbine V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 17 has a 21 meter diameter rotor operating at a 37 meter hub height. The turbine is stall -controlled and in the proposed version will be equipped with an arctic package enabling continuous operation at temperatures down to -40° C. The Northern Power 100 ARCTIC is the most widely represented village - scale wind turbine in Alaska with a significant number of installations in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and on St. Lawrence Island. The Northern Power 100 ARCTIC wind turbine is manufactured in Barre, Vermont, USA. More information can be found at.http://www.northernpower.com/. The turbine power curve is shown below. Northern Power 100 ARCTIC power curve 120 R so 5 e0 0 a° 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 WWW Speed (Ws) Emergya Wind Technologies EWT 52-900 The EWT 52-900 is an IEC Class II -A wind turbine rated at 5900 kW, equipped with a direct drive, permanent magnet, synchronous generator, a 52 rotor diameter (or 54 meter for IEC Class III conditions), and 40, 50 or 75 meter high towers. The turbine is pitch -controlled, variable speed, and can be equipped with an arctic package enabling continuous operation at temperatures down to -40° C. Three EWT-900 wind turbines are operational in Alaska, one in Delta Junction and two in Kotzebue. The EWT 52-900 wind turbine is manufactured in Amersfoort, The Netherlands, with North American representation in Bloomington, Minnesota. More information can be found at http://www.ewtinternational.com/?id=4. The turbine power curve is shown below. EWT 52-900 power curve 1,000 800 000 400 IL 3t i Wind Speed (mis) Za Electric Load Stebbins and Saint Michael load data, collected from December 2010 to December 2011, was received from Mr. Bill Thompson of AVEC. These data are in 15 minute increments and represent total electric load demand during each time step. The data were processed by adjusting the date/time stamps nine V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study P a g e 18 hours from GMT to Yukon/Alaska time, multiplying each value by four to translate kWh to kW (similar to processing of the wind turbine data), and creating a January 1 to December 31 hourly list for export to HOMER software. The resulting load is shown graphically below. Average load is 367 kW with a 662 kW peak load and an average daily load demand of 8,806 kWh. Electric load 700 Seasonal Profile 600 W 500 Y_ 400 W 300 200 100 N:U �; y400 7 S_ 30fl V 200 100 0 Hour 4 M W 16 3 0 x Max daiY trig mean day min Thermal Load The new Stebbins power plant will include recovered heat to serve thermal loads which will include the village water plant. The thermal load was described by Brian Gray of Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. in the table below and incorporated into the Homer model. Stebbins thermal load (planned) Max Max Avg Min Avg Mean Mean Min Avg Avg Temp, Load, Temp, Load, Temp, Load, Month °F kW °F kW °F kW Jan 9.9 323 3.1 363 -3.7 403 Feb 10.3 321 2.9 364 -5.1 411 Mar 16.9 282 8.2 333 -0.5 384 Apr 29.3 209 21 258 12.7 307 May 45.8 113 38.1 158 30.4 203 Jun 54.6 61 48 100 41.4 138 Jul 61 23 54.3 63 47.6 102 Aug 59.8 30 52.9 71 46.1 111 Sep 51.2 81 43.9 124 36.7 166 Oct 33 188 26.9 223 20.8 259 Nov 19.1 269 13.2 304 7.3 338 Dec 8.4 332 1.8 370 -4.8 409 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 19 Diesel Generators The HOMER model was constructed with the four new Stebbins generators that will eventually power both Stebbins and Saint Michaels once the intertie is complete. For cost modeling purposes, AEA assumes a generator O&M cost of $0.020/kWh. For HOMER modeling purposes, this was converted to $2.25/operating hour for each diesel generator (based on the combined power plant modeled average electrical load of 367 kW). Other diesel generator information pertinent to the HOMER model is shown below. Cat 3456 fuel curve information from Alaska Energy Authority was used in the Homer model. Diesel generator HOMER modeling information Diesel generator Caterpillar 3456 Efficienc►Curve Power output (kW) 450 Intercept coeff. 0.007307 (L/hr/kW rated) 30 Slope (L/hr/kW 0.2382 m .a 20 output) Minimum electric 11.0% a load (%) (50 kW) 10 Heat recovery ratio 22% (percent of waste heat ® 0 20 40 00 so 100 that can serve the ct%i — Toth thermal load) Intercept coefficient — the no-load fuel consumption of the generator divided by its capacity Slope — the marginal fuel consumption of the generator WAsP Modeling Because the Stebbins met tower has not been operational long enough to predict annual turbine energy production at the Stebbins sites, WASP (Wind Atlas and Application Program) software was used to predict the wind regime at the sites using the Saint Michael met tower as wind atlas reference. WASP is PC -based software for predicting wind climates, wind resources and power production from wind turbines and wind farms. WASP modeling begins with import of a digital elevation map (DEM) of the subject site and surrounding area and conversion of coordinates to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). UTM is a geographic coordinate system that uses a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system to identify locations on the surface of Earth. UTM coordinates reference the meridian of its particular zone (60 longitudinal zones are further subdivided by 20 latitude bands) for the easting coordinate and distance from the equator for the northing coordinate. Units are meters. Elevations of the DEMs are converted to meters if necessary for import into WASP software. A met tower reference point is added to the digital elevation map, wind turbine locations identified, and a wind turbine(s) selected to perform the calculations. WAsP considers the orographic (terrain) effects on the wind (plus surface roughness and obstacles) and calculates how wind flow increases or decreases at each node of the DEM grid. The mathematical model has a number of limitations, including the assumption of overall wind regime of the turbine site is the same as the met tower reference site, V3 ENERGY LLC f_agle. River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Pete 110 prevailing weather conditions are stable over time, and the surrounding terrain at both sites is sufficiently gentle and smooth to ensure laminar, attached wind flow. WASP software is not capable of modeling turbulent wind flow resulting from sharp terrain features such as mountain ridges, canyons, shear bluffs, etc. Turbine Site Options The Stebbins met tower area was chosen as a potential wind turbine site because it is a particularly convenient location for construction and was believed to have good wind energy potential (see pin location on Google Earth image below). The road connecting Stebbins to Saint Michael passes through the site area, and the electrical intertie will be located on an easement alongside the road, making connection to the turbines relatively inexpensive. Six months of data from the Stebbins met tower, however, indicates a less than expected wind resource at the Stebbins met tower site compared to the Saint Michael met tower data, as seen in the comparison table below. Saint Michael/Stebbins met tower data comparison Wind Speed 30 m (m/s) Difference St. Michael Stebbins N Northern Power 100 CF (%) St. Difference Michael Stebbins (%) Jan 9.95 7.14 -28.2 54.8 35.1 -35.9 Feb 8.41 8.22 -2.3 40.2 43.1 7.2 Mar 7.67 6.61 -13.8 38.1 31.4 -17.6 Apr 6.35 5.41 -14.8 24.5 19.5 -20.4 May 5.55 4.19 -24.5 19.9 9.4 -52.8 Jun 5.44 4.31 -20.8 18.6 11.8 -36.6 Jul 5.82 4.30 -26.2 21.7 10.2 -53.0 Aug 5.49 19.7 Sep 7.28 32.3 Oct 6.49 28.1 Nov 6.96 33.6 Dec 6.91 30.6 Annual 6.86 30.2 Notes Stebbins: January and July are one-half months' data each Turbine CF at 85% availability Time periods DO NOT overlap WASP modeling of the Stebbins met tower site area with the Saint Michael met tower as the reference point validates the early data returns for the Stebbins met tower, as shown in the WASP wind speed map below. On review of this map, however, it was noticed that the Cape Stephens bluff area due west of the Stebbins met tower site shows considerable promise for wind power development. V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 111 WAsP wind speed resource map Due to WASP modeling results that indicate a superior wind resource at the Cape Stephens bluff area, two possible Stebbins wind sites have been identified: the Stebbins met tower site area, referred to as Stebbins Site 1; and the bluff area of Cape Stephens to the west, referred to as Stebbins Site 2. Again, with the Saint Michael met tower as the reference, WASP software predicts the highest turbine energy production at the Alternate 2 site; higher even that at the St. Michael met tower itself, as shown in the table below. These modeling results will be updated when one year of data from the Stebbins met tower is available. Modeling with Stebbins met tower data will refine the energy production estimates, but relative differences between the alternate sites are unlikely to change significantly. WASP comparative prediction of Stebbins sites, one turbine Location Wind Speed Power Density, NP 100 Annual NP 100 Capacity (annual mean), (annual mean), Energy Production, Factor at 100% (m/s) (W/m2) AEP, (MWh/yr) avail., (%) St. Michael met site 6.95 462 293.0 33.4 Stebbins met site (Stebbins Site 1) 6.36 355 253.7 29.0 Bluff area (Stebbins Site 2) 7.35 547 320.5 36.6 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Alternate Sites 1 and 2 Page 112 Stebbins Site 1: Stebbins met tower area As noted earlier in this report, two alternate turbine configurations are considered: installation of four Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines or one EWT 52-900 turbine. These alternatives would have considerably different effects in that the combined 400 kW capacity of the Northern Power turbines is less than half the potential capacity of the 900 kW EWT turbine. Nine hundred kW of wind capacity may be excessive initially, especially until the intertie connected Stebbins to Saint Michael is completed, but turbine output can be limited via pitch control to as low as 250 kW maximum output. Turbine siting options for Stebbins Site 1 will be refined during the design process, but WASP modeling with the Saint Michael met tower as a reference site indicates that turbines should be located on the northern edge of the plateau to catch upslope winds from the ocean. This effect is shown in the WASP/Google Earth graphic below which indicates in yellow the higher wind speeds expected on northern edge of the plateau area. For this reason, the four Northern Power 100 turbines are located at or near the plateau edge, as is the EWT 52-900 turbine. The following image shows the Northern Power turbines on site without the WAsP wind speed overlay. V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study WAsP wind speed overlay Alt. Site 1 (Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines) Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbine layout at Stebbins Site 1 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Page 113 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 114 WASP wind speed overlay Alt. Site 1 (EWT 52-900 turbine) EWT 52-900 turbine layout at Stebbins Site 1 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 115 Stebbins Site 2: Cape Stephens Bluff Area Given the significantly higher wind speeds at the Cape Stephens bluff area, Stebbins Site 2 will likely become the primary wind site during the design process. As noted with Stebbins Site 1, turbine siting options for Stebbins Site 2 will be refined during the design process and WASP modeling updated with the nearby Stebbins met tower data when available. WASP modeling indicates, however, that turbines should be located at or near the top of the bluff to make best use of the prevailing northeasterly winds. WASP wind speed overlay Alt. Site 2 (Northern Power turbines shown) V3 ENERGY EEC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 116 Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbine layout at Stebbins Site 2 WAsP wind speed overlay Alt. Site 2 (EWT 52-900 turbine) V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 117 EWT 52-900 turbine layout at Stebbins Site 2 Wind Farm Modeling Results WASP software calculates gross and net annual energy production (AEP) for turbines contained within wind farms, such as an array of two or more turbines in proximity to each other. For single turbines, such as the EWT 52-900 at Alternate Sites 1 or 2, WAsP calculates gross AEP. Net AEP is identical to the gross as there is no wake loss to consider. The following tables presents the WAsP software analysis of energy production and capacity factor performance of the Northern Power 100 in a four turbine array and one EWT 52-900 wind turbine at 100% turbine availability (percent of time that the turbine is on-line and available for energy production). Both wind turbines perform well in the Stebbins wind regime with good capacity factors and annual energy productions. Note that for both turbines the standard (atmospheric conditions) power curve was compensated to the measured mean annual site air density of 1.272 kg/m3. For the stall -controlled Northern Power 100, power output (for each m/s wind speed step) is multiplied by the ratio of site air density to standard air density of 1.225 kg kg/m3. For the pitch -controlled EWT 52-900, the algorithm is similar but the density ratio is raised to the one-third power. Site Northern Power 100 Arctic EWT 52-900 Gross AEP (MWh/yr) Net AEP (MWh/yr) Wake Loss (%) Gross AEP (MWh/yr) Alt. Site 1 (met 1,093 1,081 1.08 2,568 tower area) V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Site Northern Power 100 Arctic Page 118 EWT 52-900 Gross AEP (MWh/yr) Net AEP (MWh/yr) Wake Loss (%) Gross AEP (MWh/yr) Alt. Site 2 (bluff 1,313 1,298 1.15 3,047 area) Economic Analysis Installation of four Northern Power 100 ARCTIC wind turbines and one EWT 52-900 wind turbine in medium -to -high penetration mode without electrical storage are evaluated to demonstrate the economic benefit of the project options. Note that in the analyses turbines are connected to the electrical distribution system with first priority to serve the electrical load, and second priority to serve the thermal load via a secondary load controller and electric boiler Wind Turbine Costs Project capital and installation costs for the four alternatives (two different turbines at two possible sites) were obtained from HDL, Inc. and are copied below for information. Details regarding HDL's cost estimates are available from them. Project cost estimates Site Four NP 100 ARCTIC turbines One EWT52/54-900 turbine Alt. Site 1 (Stebbins met tower area) $4,220,500 Alt. Site 2 (Cape Stephens bluff area) $4,327,350 $4,875,224 $5,000,725 Fuel Cost A fuel price of $4.69/gallon ($1.24/Liter) was chosen for the initial HOMER analysis by reference to Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2012-2035, prepared for Alaska Energy Authority by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), dated July, 2012. The $4.69/gallon price reflects the average value of all fuel prices between the 2014 (assumed project start year) fuel price of $4.25/gallon and the 2033 (20 year project end year) fuel price of $5.14/gallon using the medium price projection analysis with social cost of carbon included (see ISER spreadsheet for Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 analysis). By comparison, the fuel price for Stebbins (without social cost of carbon) reported to Regulatory Commission of Alaska for the 2011 PCE report is $3.24/gallon ($0.856/Liter). Fuel cost table Average Average Cost Scenario 2014 (/gal) 2033 (/gal) (/gallon) (/Liter) Medium $4.25 $5.14 $4.69 $1.24 Modeling Assumptions As previously noted in this report, HOMER energy modeling software was used to analyze a combined Stebbins and Saint Michael power System. HOMER was designed to analyze hybrid power systems that contain a mix of conventional and renewable energy sources, such as diesel generators, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, etc. and is widely used to aid development of Alaska village wind power projects. V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 119 Modeling assumptions are detailed in the table below. Many assumptions, such as project life, discount rate, operations and maintenance (0&M) costs, etc. are AEA default values. Other assumptions, such as diesel overhaul cost and time between overhaul are based on general rural Alaska power generation experience. The base or comparison scenario is new Stebbins power plant presently under construction that will be equipped with four identically configured Caterpillar 3456 diesel engines with 450 kW generators. Although the existing Stebbins does not have a heat recovery loop to offset thermal loads in the village, the new powerplant will have this capability. With that in mind, the base, or comparison, scenario is the new power plant operating in diesel mode with functional heat recovery serving the thermal load defined previously in the report. Note that wind turbines installed at either of the Stebbins will operate in parallel with the diesel generators. Excess energy will serve thermal loads via a secondary load controller and electric boiler. Installation cost of wind turbines assumes construction of three phase power distribution to the selected site, plus civil, permitting, integration and other related project costs. Homer modeling assumptions Economic Assumptions Project life Discount rate System fixed 0&M cost Operating Reserves Load in current time step Wind power output Fuel Properties (both types) Heating value Density Price Diesel Generators Generator capital cost 0&M cost Time between overhauls Overhaul cost Minimum load Schedule Wind Turbines Availability Northern Power 100 ARCTIC project cost (4 turbines) EWT 52-900 (or 54-900) (1 turbine) O&M cost V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 20 years (2014 to 2033) 3% $600,000/year (independent of diesel 0&M costs) 10% 50% 43.2 MJ/kg (18,600 BTU/Ib.) 820 kg/m3 (6.85 Ib./gal) $4.69/gal ($1.24/Liter) $0 (new generators already funded) $2.25/hour (approximately $0.02/kWh) 15,000 hours (run time) None assumed 50 kW; based on AVEC's operational criteria of 50 kW minimum diesel loading with their wind -diesel systems Optimized 100% and 80% $4,220,500 (Alt. Site 1) $4,327,350 (Alt. Site 2) $4,875,224 (Alt. Site 1) $5,000,725 (Alt. Site 2) $0.0469/kWh for NP 100 ARCTIC (equates to $12,325/year) and $0.018/kWh for EWT 52-900 (equates to $42,573/year); both assume 30% CF. Note that the EWT 52-900 the AEA Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study age 120 default O&M rate for an urban wind turbine was chosen even though this would be a rural application. This decision was based on the utility scale of the EWT turbine and the excessively high annual cost if the rural rate were chosen. Wind speed Saint Michael met tower: 6.84 m/s at 28.4 m level of met tower 7.07 m/s at 37 m, extrapolated 7.38 m/s at 50 m, extrapolated Stebbins Site 1 (Stebbins met tower area): 6.64 m/s at 37 m, 100% turbine availability 5.90 m/s at 37 m, 80% turbine availability Stebbins Site 2 (Cape Stephens bluff area): 7.40 m/s, 100% turbine availability 6.50 m/s, 80% turbine availability Density adjustment 1.272 kg/m^3 (1.270 kg/m^3 measured at St. Michael met tower); note that standard density is 1.225 kg/MA 3 Energy Loads Electric 8.80 MWh/day average combined Stebbins -Saint Michael power plant load Thermal 5.44 MWh/day average new Stebbins thermal load (once on- line) V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 ri N tLo 6. u ° 'M ro w 0 � C CO m cc O O Q1 in m E u L 00 1-1 O N w t -0 N — M r-I O O O O v0- w O 00 Q O Ln Lm O ,-. 4� O CE a) LD n n v0.0 00 �._. T � 4-- ri N r•1 C = J I- N O LD LD LD O O -1 N Ln 2 ri c-I ri rI M N N r-I Il vOi J N 00 N zz- O Ln ri p m rn Ln I- Ln c O u 00 M O O O N 2 m o O o u D_ Z O H m a-. } Q C m U Ln 00 LD O O O t0 O -t- oo N m .t:t 00 0 0000 M O N N N Ln Ln m r0) L -I O 00 M n V ri -4 ri N V? O N Ln Ln O 00 N r-I U O rN-I O d 00 m O O D1 � f ci ri O of m a E o O1 o Ln u L x a -- `-I r-i O N W t +1 -O a) M a) Ln N O on O lD Q O � � 0 Or = 4, m Ln m -I r, Ln r- H °J °p R rn v LSD r-I N ri -4 N O O O M N ri N r-I lqt r-I N rn Ct Qj N -4 O CA J N 00 M a! t:F Ln LD 0 00 rn rn ct I, Ln c -6 O U e--I m O O LD rI L O O O LL W U \ i2 i, ..r � a Z O Q ~ � O } it L N Ln O } H t 0 cl O O C m O 14) r-1 � C� O � � a Q to 3 Z H H QO1 4-1 Ln 4 00 N O O O N O 1.0 -i N �t fV 00 r-I w 00 rn c'n am Ln L0 r� N N N i/Y 1/ Ln 00 N ri O M O ri c^I n a) n Ln c-1 r•I c-I N t/? O n O 00 N r4 0 N N QJ hi6 O a p l0 O1 O M C M CO oC O a) ri c-I O �a v E o u L a) Ln N O N W ++ a) — ri rn M W a v d o Ln Ln 4. Ln I, am v an � v r.4 r-I N r-I bD 00 IT N _ O J lD LO i--I (6 —_ro p O O N Ln 2 -4 r-I r-I 00 m N O N J oc N Lcl 00 p 00 rn o M r, In c o O Ln � O O tt N c0 ?j u O o O L LL W O \ to U o_ Z m 0 H is m .� c coo V Ln 00 N O O O 00 O N M N o N 'T N 00 M L!1 co lD l0 N N N t/F t/} ih -i Lcl O N ri ri 00 O 00 Lr) r-I M N r� �t ri ri c-I O t!} Q^1 O a) cn t!i th U O 4' O 1�L0 Co to O O a1 oC r I O a) E o 00 0 X ai ° W 4� cc O bD oO Lx a' 0 Ln a) .� o I- Y ~ a) on M rl � y 00 00 d 01 N (6 —_ aJ O r-I N Lr) 2 c-I r-I r1 cn Lr) 00 -1 V) �pif J N cl l0 N lT Lr) 01 p M m Ln Ln c -a ° O M o O rn ri u t6 O O O L W W Q \> O_ .� Z .> 0 Q H CLO r. O 4 + 4 L (6 0 T O a) I? t} O N � 4- M e .Q Li u V N ~ L z a � 3 Vi Ln rq W Ln N 00 r-I M Ln 00 O O O O O N N M Itt N N lzl* n 06 ri r-i m cn Ln LO rl N N N Vh V} -L } 00 Ln LO 00 ri LO nn O -:T N r-I ::F Ln M r" Ln c-I ri ri O t/} Cri Ql O a) m r-i Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 123 Conclusion and Recommendations WAsP and Homer modeling indicate that the wind resource in Stebbins, particularly at Stebbins Site 2, the Cape Stephens bluff area, would be highly productive for wind turbine operations. Both turbine configurations modeled — four Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines and one EWT 52-900 turbine — would be suitable and result in good benefit -to -cost ratios. To be considered during design, but it is likely that the economic evaluation of the project can be improved with addition of short-term electrical storage to allow the diesel engines to operate at lower loading levels, or even longer term electrical storage to "bank" excess instantaneous wind energy. In addition to the Northern Power and EWT turbines, it is possible that other wind turbines, particularly remanufactured turbines that offer equivalent installed wind capacity for a lower cost, would be suitable for this project. This could be explored during project design. V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 9073a0.5047 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 124 Appendix A: WAsP modeling report of four Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines at Stebbins Site 1 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.:350.5047 Stebbins NW100 wind farm, Alternate Site 1 Produced on 8/29/2012 at 3:40:43 PM by licenced user: Douglas 1. Vaught, V3 Energy, USA using WAsP version: 10,02.0010. Summary results Parameter Total Average Minimum Maximum Net AEP [MWh] 1081.482 270.371 266.189 275.148 Gross AEP [MWh] 1093.322 273.330 269.961 275.844 Wake loss % 1.08 - - - Site results Site Location Turbine Elevation Height Net AEP Wake loss m m a.s.l. m a. .I. MWh Steb NW 1 (635104, NWP 100 42.74428 37 266.189 1.4 7048126) Steb NW 2 (635188, NWP 100 44.22528 37 269.387 1.45 7048083) Steb NW 3 (635272, NWP 100 44.80402 37 270.759 1.24 7048040) Steb NW 4 (635356, NWP 100 45 37 275.148 0.25 7047997 Site wind climates Site I Location Height A k U E RIX dRIX Steb NW 1 Steb NW 2 Steb NW 3 Steb NW 4 [m] [m [m/s] [m/s] [W/m2] [%] a.g.l.] (635104, 37 7.3 1.73 6.48 389 0.8 7048126) (635188, 37 7.3 1.72 6.53 398 0.7 7048083) (635272, 37 7.3 1.72 6.54 402 0.8 7048040) (635356, 37 7.4 1.72 6.56 407 0.8 7047997) 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 C:\Users\Doug\Documents\AVEC\Stebbins-St Michael\WASP\Stebbins NW100 wind farm, Alternate Site 1.docx 1 10-09-12 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 125 Appendix B: WAsP modeling report of one EWT 52-900 turbine at Stebbins Site 1 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.3350.5047 9/10/12 Turbine site report for'EWT Site, met tower' 'EWT Site, met tower' Turbine site Produced on 9/10/2012 at 2:09:29 PM by licenced user: Douglas J. Vaught, V3 Energy, USA using WASP Version: 10.02.0010 Site information Location in the map The turbine is located at co-ordinates (635329,7047997) in a map called 'Stebbins -St Michael'. The site elevation is 45.0 m a.s.l. Site effects Sector jAngle [0] Or.Spd [0/6] Or.Tur [1] Obs.Spd jRgh.SpdI [%] I Rix [%] 1 0 i10.11 1.9 '0.00 0.00 10.3 2 10 11.09 1.1 0.00 0.00 0.2 3 20 11.57 0.3 �0.000.00 0.3 4 30 111.49 -0.6 0.00 0.00 0.2 5 40 10.86 -1.4 0.00 0.00 0.2 6 50 9.74 2 0 0.00 0.00 0.7 7 60 8.27 2.5 0.00 0.00 0.8 file:///C:/Users/ Doug/A ppData/ Loca I/Te m p/WaspRe portingTe m pora ryFile. html 1/3 9/10/12 8 70 6.61 9 10 90 3.50 ri 100 g2.45 12 110 1.93 13 120 2.02 14 130 2.70 15 140 3.89 16 150 5.42 17 160 7.10 18 170 8.73 19 180 10.11 __1 20 190 11.09 21 200 111.57 22 210 _--t, 11.49 23 220 10.86 24 230 19.74 25 240 ,8.27 26 250 6.61 27 260 4.95 28 270 3.50 29 280 2.45 30 290 1.93 31 300 2.02 32 310 2.70 33 320 3.89 34 1330 '5.42 35 1340 7.10 36 1350 i8.73 Turbine site report for'E\AIT Site, met tower' -2.6 io 00 -2.4 !0.00 -2.0 30.00 -1.2 �0.00 -0.3 0.00 LL 0.6 0.00 1.5 io.00 2.1 10.00 2.5 -0.00 2.6 0.00 2.4 !0.00 1.9 0.00 1.1 !0.00 0.3 10.00 -0.6 10.00 LL -1.4 �o.00 -2.0 !0.00 -2.5 '0.00 -2.6 -2.4 to.00 -2.0 0.00 -1.2 �0.00 -0.3 �0.00 0.6 0.00 1.5 10.00 2.1 0.00 2.5 2.6 0.00 2.4 10.00 The all -sector RIX (ruggedness index) for the site is 0.8% The predicted wind climate at the turbine site :0.00 10.7 0.00 10.1 �0.00 0.0 0.00 0.8 J-0-.100 0.1 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.1 ;0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 :0.00 10.0 `0.00 10.0 0.00 0.6 0.00 3.6 10.00 0. 9 10.00 0.5 0.00 0.50.00 _ 0.8__ f0.00 1.2 0.00 2.2 0.00 2.4 '0.00 2.2 0.00 2.1, '0.00 2.5 0.00 10.00 0.6 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.6 0.00 iO.2 Total i,--maximurn power density distribution Mean wind speed 7.10 m/s J2.43 m/s . .. . ........ Mean power density 512 W/M2 42 (W/M2)/(M/S) 20.0- Sector: AM U.- 7.10 mis P: 512 W/m 2 Emergent f MAMMI 010-C. 0 _U Im/sl 25.00 file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/LocaI/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.htm1 2/3 9/10/12 Turbine site report for'EWT Site, met tower' Results Sites Location [m] ITurbine Height [m] Net AEP [GWh] Wake foss [%] EWT Site, met tower I(635329.2,7047997.0) EWT52-900 150 12.568 10.0 The combined (omnidirectional) Weibull distribution predicts a gross AEP of 2.583 GWh and the emergent (sum of sectors) distribution predicts a gross AEP of 2.568 GWh. (The difference is 0.57% ) Project parameters The site is in a project called Project 1. Here is a list of all the parameters with non -default values: • Default number of rose sectors: 36.00 (default is 12.00) • Air density: 1.273 (default is 1.225) Data origins information The map was imported by 'Doug' from a file called 'C:\Users\Doug\Documents\AVEC\Stebbins-St Michael\WAsP\Stebbins-St Michael.map', on a computer called 'V3ENERGYACER-PC'. The map file data were last modified on the 7/20/2012 at 4:27:07 PM There is no information about the origin of the wind atlas file. The wind turbine generator was imported by 'Doug' from a file called 'C:\Users\Doug\Documents\Wind Turbines\WAsP turbine curves\EWT52-900, 50 m.wtg', on a computer called 'V3ENERGYACER-PC'. The wind turbine generator file were last modified on the 8/31/2012 at 1:12:58 PM file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.htm1 3/3 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 126 Appendix C: WAsP modeling report of four Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines at Stebbins Site 2 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River,, Alaska 407.350.5047 Stebbins NW100 wind farm, Alternate Site 2 Produced on 8/29/2012 at 4:03:16 PM by licenced user: Douglas J. Vaught, V3 Energy, USA using WASP version: 10.02.0010. Summary results Parameter Total Average Minimum Maximum Net AEP [MWh] 1297.965 324.491 317.096 332.191 Gross AEP [MWh] 1313.033 328.258 320.962 337.261 Wake loss % 1.15 - - - Site results Site Location Turbine Elevation Height Net AEP Wake loss m m a.s.l. m a. .I. MWh Steb NW-1 (633945, NWP 100 47.15633 37 317.096 1.2 7048363) Steb NW-2 (633981, NWP 100 60.09665 37 332.191 1.5 7048261) Steb NW-3 (634017, NWP 100 60.46437 37 325.465 1.4 7048160) Steb NW-4 (634073, NWP 100 61.44584 37 323.213 0.46 7048071) Site wind climates Site Location Height A k U E RIX dRIX m m a. .I. m/s m/s W/m2 Steb NW-1 (633945, 37 8.1 1.71 7.22 546 0.9 0.4 7048363) Steb NW-2 (633981, 37 8.4 1.72 7.48 602 0.8 0.4 7048261) Steb NW-3 (634017, 37 8.3 1.72 7.36 571 0.9 0.4 7048160) Steb NW-4 (634073, 37 8.2 1.73 7.28 550 1.0 0.5 7048071) The wind farm lies in a map called 'Stebbins -St Michael'. C:\Users\Doug\Documents\AVEC\Stebbins-St Michael\WAsP\Stebbins NW100 wind farm, Alternate Site 2.docx 1 10-09-12 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 127 Appendix D: WAsP modeling report of one EWT 52-900 turbine at Stebbins Site 2 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.3350.5047 9/10/12 Turbine site report for'EWT Site, Alt Site 2' 'EWT Site, Alt Site 2' Turbine site Produced on 9/10/2012 at 5:05:31 PM by licenced user: Douglas J. Vaught, V3 Energy, USA using WAsP Version: 10.02.0010 Site information Location in the map The turbine is located at co-ordinates (633967,7048272) in a map called 'Stebbins -St Michael'. The site elevation is 59.1 m a.s.l. Site effects Sector Angle [a] Or.Spd [°/a] OrJur [1] jObs.Spd [%] IRgh.S 1 0 18.96 5.8 y0.00 0.00 2 -f 10 22.93 5.2 '0.00 0.00 3 20 y26.22 4.0 '0.00 0.00 4 30 28.52 2.4 0.00 0.00 5 40 29.59 0.6 0.00 0.00 6 50 29.34 -1.3 0.00 0.00 7 60 27.80 -3.0 0.00 0.00 d [%] ( Rix [%] r-- 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.htm1 1/3 9/10/12 8 70 9.. 80 10 90 11 100 12 110 .. _..___� 13 120 14 _i130 15 140 16 150 17 160 18 �. 170 19 180 .._._...� 20 190 21 200 22 210 23 220 24 230 25 240�- 26 250 27 260 28 270 29 280 30 290 31 i300 32 310 33 34 330_ 35 340 36 350 Turbine site report for'EWT Site, Alt Site 2' '25.10 -4.5 0.00 A00 0.6 21.51 -5.5 0.00 �0.00 12.0 17.40 -5.9 10,00 10.00 1.1 13.24 -5.6 i0.00 10.00 1.1 9.55 -4.6 10.00�µ0.00 0.4 6.85 -2.9 0.00 0.00 10.3 5.55 0.7 ;0.00 0.00 0.2 5.85 1.6 3.6 j0.00 10.00 0.00 0.6 1.6 7.71 10.84..0 5.0 0.00 ,0.00 2..5.. 14.76 5.8 0.00 0.00 3.5 18.96 5.8 0.00 0.00 0.3 22,93 5.2 4.0 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.8 1.1 26.22 28.52 2.4 10.00 0.00 0.9 29.59 0.6 10.00 0.00 1.1 129.34 -1.3 0.00 0.00 41.1 27.80 -3.0 0.00 0.00 1 1 25.10 -4.5 0.00 0.00 0�8 121.51 -5.5 0.00 0.00 '0.9 117.40 -5.9 '0.00 10.00 0.7 13.24 5.6 10.00 10.00 0.5 '0.5 j9.55 -4.6 10.00 0.00 6.85 2.9 0.00 0.00 1.0 j5.55 ;-0.7 0.00 0.00 1.3 5.85 1.6 0.00 0.00 1.5 7.71 3.6 0.00 0.00 0.8 10.84 5.0 0.00 0.00 0.5 14.76 5.8 0.00 eo.00 0.4 The all -sector RIX (ruggedness index) for the site is 0.9% The predicted wind climate at the turbine site Total 1wind at maximum power density distribution Mean wind speed Mean power density 7.92 m/s 113.80 m/s 705_W,/m24N_✓V 53 (W/M2)/(m/s) 20.0 Sector: AM U- 7.92 mi's P: 705 Wjm2 - Emergent f MAMIS]] 0.0- 0 u [MIS] 25.00 file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/WaspReportingTemporaryFile.htm1 2/3 9/10/12 Turbine site report for'EWT Site, Alt Site 2' Results Site ILocation [m] ITurbine Height [m] Net AEP [GWh] lWake loss [%] EWT Site, Alt Site 2 (633967, 7048272) EWT52-900 150 13.047 10.0 The combined (omnidirectional) Weibull distribution predicts a gross AEP of 3.054 GWh and the emergent (sum of sectors) distribution predicts a gross AEP of 3.047 GWh. (The difference is 0.22% ) Project parameters The site is in a project called Project 1. Here is a list of all the parameters with non -default values: • Default number of rose sectors: 36.00 (default is 12.00) • Air density: 1.273 (default is 1.225) Data origins information The map was imported by 'Doug' from a file called 'C:\Users\Doug\Documents\AVEC\Stebbins -St Michael\WAsP\Stebbins-St Michael.map', on a computer called 'V3ENERGYACER-PC'. The map file data were last modified on the 7/20/2012 at 4:27:07 PM There is no information about the origin of the wind atlas file. The wind turbine generator was imported by 'Doug' from a file called 'C:\Users\Doug\Documents\Wind Turbines\WAsP turbine curves\EWT52-900, 50 m.wtg', on a computer called 'V3ENERGYACER-13C. The wind turbine generator file were last modified on the 8/31/2012 at 1:12:58 PM file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Loca I/Temp/WaspReportingTempora ryFile.html 3/3 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 128 Appendix E: Homer System Report of four Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines at Stebbins Site 1 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 9073350.5047 9/11/12 System Report- St Michael -Stebbins System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Sensitivity case Wind Data Scaled Average: 5.9 m/s EWT 52-900, rho=1.272 Capital Cost Multiplier: 1 Northwind100B, rho=1.272 Capital Cost Multiplier: 1 Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 % Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 % Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 % Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 % System architecture Wind turbine Northwind100B, rho=1.272 Cat 3456 450 kW Cat 3456 450 kW Cat 3456 450 kW Cat 3456 450 kW Cost summary Total net present cost $ 27,981,426 Levelized cost of energy $ 0.492/kWh Operating cost $ 1,597,108/yr 14.000,000 12.000,000 y 10,000,000 0 0 8,000,000 d °p 5,000,000 1° C. Z4,000,000 2.000.000 Net Present Costs -- Northwindl0{}B, rho==1.272 Cat 3456 — Cat 3456 — Cat 3456 — Cat 3456 Boiler Other Corn pone nt Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total Northwind100B, rho=1.272 4,220,500 0 733,460 0 0 4,953,960 Cat 3456 0 0 70,397 3,813,348 0 3,883,744 Cat 3456 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cat 3456 0 0 273,251 7,052,573 0 7,325,825 Cat 3456 0 0 18,980 134,749 0 153,729 Boiler 0 0 0 2,737,693 0 2,737,693 file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Michael-Stebbins.htm 1/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Other 0 0 8,926,488 0 0 8,926,488 System 4,220,500 0 1 10,022,574 13,738,363 0 27,981,434 Annualized Costs Component Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total ($/Yr) ($/Yr) ($/Yr) ($/Yr) ($/Yr) ($/Yr) Northwind100B, rho=1.272 283,684 0 49,300 0 0 332,984 Cat 3456 0 0 4,732 256,317 0 261,049 Cat 3456 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cat 3456 0 0 18,367 474,044 0 492,411 Cat 3456 0 0 1,276 9,057 0 10,333 Boiler 0 0 0 184,016 0 184,016 Other 0 0 600,000 0 0 600,000 System 1283,684 0 673,674 923,434 0 1,880,792 51 �.-1.000,000 �a a u.-2.000.000 s m to io-3,000,000 r x-4,000,000 }4N Electrical Cash 1= ows 0 1 2 3 4 5 C t 8 S' 10 11 12 13 14 9 t l tk If 9 8 IV ZU Year Number Component Production Fraction (kWh/Yr) Wind turbines 868,099 27% Cat 3456 838,755 26% Cat 3456 0 0% Cat 3456 1,533,883 47% Cat 3456 28,067 1 % Total 3,268,803 100% 500 400 300 1200 m 100 L+ U^nfhtw ilva-ram FLPrfrir_ WrMur_finn i — Capital Replacement Sstvage — Operating Fuel ,loll rru Ivuu ,rop lviny ,auwr 4ul reu}t a ,F file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Loca I/Tem p/St_M icha el-Stebbins.htm 2/7 — Capital Replacement Sstvage — Operating Fuel ,loll rru Ivuu ,rop lviny ,auwr 4ul reu}t a ,F file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Loca I/Tem p/St_M icha el-Stebbins.htm 2/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Load Consumption Fraction (kWh/yr) AC primary load 3,214,180 100% Total 3,214,180 100% Quantity Value Units Excess electricity 54,607 kWh/yr Unmet load 0.00768 kWh/yr Capacity shortage 0.00 kWh/yr Renewable fraction 0.157 Thermal Component Production Fraction (kWh/yr) Cat 3456 262,951 13% Cat 3456 490,155 24% Cat 3456 9,637 0% Boiler 1,221,105 60% Excess electricity 54,607 3% Total 2,038,455 1000% G'�IE 300 Y E 2� m F 100 Monthly AverWe Thermal Producfilan Ilan Feb hMawfApr May Jun JuI Aug Sep i Oct 1 h&Yvr Dec Load Consumption Fraction (kWh/yr) Thermal load 1,986,697 100% Total 1,986,697 100% Quantity Value Units Excess thermal energy 51,758 kWh/yr AC Wind Turbine: Northwind100B, rho=1.272 Variable Value Units Total rated capacity 400 kW Mean output 99.1 kW Capacity factor 24.8 % Total production 868,099 kWh/yr Variable Value Units Minimum output 0.00 kW Gat 34W Gat 3456 Gat 3456 Gat 34-% Excess E*ctnnity file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_MichaeI-Stebbins.htm 3/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Maximum output 395 kW Wind penetration 27.0 % Hours of operation 6,904 hr/yr Levelized cost 0.384 $/kWh Cat 3456 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 2,103 hr/yr Number of starts 482 starts/yr Operational life 11.9 yr Capacity factor 21.3 % Fixed generation cost 6.33 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.295 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 838,755 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 399 kW Min. electrical output 359 kW Max. electrical output 450 kW Thermal production 262,951 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 125 kW Min. thermal output 113 kW Max thermal output 140 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 206,707 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.246 L/kWh Fuel energy input 2,033,998 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 41.2 % Mean total efficiency 54.2 % 24 0 Z 12 file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Loca I/Te m p/St_Micha el-Stebbins.htm 4/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Cat 3456 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 0 hr/yr Number of starts 0 starts/yr Operational life 1,000 yr Capacityfactor 0.00 % Fixed generation cost 6.33 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.295 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 0.00 kW Min. electrical output 0.00 kW Max. electrical output 0.00 kW Thermal production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 0.00 kW Min. thermal output 0.00 kW Max. thermal output 0.00 i kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 0 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 L/kWh Fuel energy input 0 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency 0.0 % 24 m 18 12 Cat 3456 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 8,163 hr/yr Number of starts 396 starts/yr Operational life 3.06 yr Capacity factor 38.9 % Fixed generation cost 3.17 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.304 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 1,533,883 kWh/yr file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Michae1-Stebbins.htm 5/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Mean electrical output 188 kW Min. electrical output 49.5 kW Max. electrical output 359 kW Thermal production 490,155 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 60.0 kW Min. thermal output 17.0 kW Max. thermal output 113 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 382,293 L/yr Specificfuel consumption 0.249 L/kWh Fuel energy input 3,761,766 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 40.8 % Mean total efficiency 53.8 % kW 3m 2138 . 216 144 72 Q Cat 3456 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 567 hr/yr Number of starts 368 starts/yr Operational life 44.1 yr Capacityfactor 0.712 % Fixed generation cost 3.17 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.304 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 28,067 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 49.5 kW Min. electrical output 49.5 kW Max. electrical output 49.5 kW Thermal production 9,637 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 17.0 kW Min. thermal output 17.0 kW Max. thermal output 17.0 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 7,304 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.260 L/kWh file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Michae1-Stebbins.htm 6/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Fuel energy input 71,873 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 39.0 % Mean total efficiency 52.5 % 24 '5 '12 Emissions Pollutant Emissions (kg/yr) Carbon dio)ade 1,962,912 Carbon mono)ade 3,876 Unburned hydocarbons 429 Particulate matter 292 Sulfur dioxide 3,957 Nitrogen o)ades 34,586 file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_MichaeI-Stebbins.htm 7/7 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 129 Appendix F: Homer System Report of one EWT 52-900 turbine at Stebbins Site 1 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907. 350.5047 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Sensitivity case Wind Data Scaled Average: 5.9 m/s EWT 52-900, rho=1.272 Capital Cost Multiplier: 1 Northwind100B, rho=1.272 Capital Cost Multiplier: 1 Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 % Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 % Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 % Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 % System architecture Wind turbine 1 EWT 52-900, rho=1.272 Cat 3456 450 kW Cat 3456 450 kW Cat 3456 450 kW Cat 3456 450 kW Cost summary Total net present cost Level ized cost of energy $ 25,962,162 $ 0.450/kWh Operating cost $ 1,417,374/yr 12.000,000 9,000.000 0 t� V 5,000,000 d x 3.000,000 I1 Capital Replacement t_ipetatnng Net Present Costs f-uel _-�aivage f' VT 52-900, rhea=1.272 — Cat 3456 Cat 3456 — Cat 3456 — Cat :3456 — Bailer Other Component Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total EWT 52-900, rho=1.272 4,875,224 0 633,379 0 0 5,508,603 Cat 3456 0 0 53,124 2,873,506 0 2,926,631 Cat 3456 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cat 3456 0 0 262,640 5,957,029 0 6,219,669 Cat 3456 0 0 14,427 102,428 0 116,855 Boiler 0 0 0 2,263,924 0 2,263,924 file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_MichaeI-Stebbins.htm 1/7 9/11/12 1 Other I System Annualized Costs System Report- St Michael -Stebbins 0 0 8,926,488 0 4,875,224 0 9,890,058 11,196,886 0 1 8,926,488 0 125,962,166 Component Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total ($/Yr) ($/yr) ($/Yr) ($/Yr) ($/yr) ($/Yr) EWT 52-900, rho=1.272 327,692 0 42,573 0 0 370,265 Cat 3456 0 0 3,571 193,145 0 196,716 Cat 3456 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cat 3456 0 0 17,654 400,406 0 418,059 Cat 3456 0 0 970 6,885 0 7,855 Boiler 0 0 0 152,171 0 152,171 Other 0 0 600,000 0 0 600,000 System 327,692 0 664,767 752,607 0 1,745,066 Em .-.-1,oco.000 w a u.-2,000,000 a C� -3.000,000 C 0 Z -4,{)00.000 rac aea Electrical Gash Flows D 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 8 'J I 11 1z 16 14 ')s 10 1f I -1 `0 2-lu Year Number Component Production Fraction (kWh/yr) Wind turbine 1,861,484 49% Cat 3456 632,005 17% Cat 3456 0 0% Cat 3456 1,292,753 34% Cat 3456 21,335 1 % Total 3,807,576 100% .. ,1 Pqnl'nin � � n ■rnnl ,11 I !rzmnn „_U Mid — Gat 3458 — Cat 3456 — Capital Replacement Salvage Operating — Fuel file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Loca I/Temp/St_M icha eI-Stebbins.htm 2/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Load Consumption Fraction ®----- (kWh/yr) AC primary load 3,214,180 100% Total 3,214,180 100% Quantity Value Units Excess electricity 593,384 kWh/yr Unmet load 0.00789 kWh/yr Capacity shortage 0.00 kWh/yr Renewable fraction 0.312 Thermal Component Production Fraction •--•-•— (kWh/yr) Cat 3456 198,151 9% Cat 3456 414,650 19% Cat 3456 7,326 0% Boiler 1,009,788 45% Excess electricity 593,384 27% Total 2,223,299 100% 400 300 20m CD F'7ao �'�r«Tiiil�:'C'Z�f�',•::fir[=AtlaaE�ti�C*:raa[y4e.7 I I ff ■ M ff � Jan Feb Mat Apr May Jun Jul Aug zaep va fav LPIC Load Consumption Fraction (kWh/yr) Thermal load 1,986,697 100% Total 1,986,697 100% Quantity Value Units Excess thermal energy 236,602 kWh/yr AC Wind Turbine: EWT 52-900, rho=1.272 Variable Value Units Total rated capacity 900 kW Mean output 212 kW Capacity factor 23.6 % Total production 1,861,484 kWh/yr Variable Value Units Minimum output 0.00 kW Gat 34 Cat 3456 Cat 3456 Cat 3456 BOOET file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Michae1-Stebbins.htm 3/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Maximum output 889 kW Wind penetration 57.9 % Hours of operation 8,032 hr/yr Levelized cost 0.199 $/kWh Cat 3456 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 1,587 hr/yr Number of starts 386 starts/yr Operational life 15.8 yr Capacity factor 16.0 % Fixed generation cost 6.33 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.295 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 632,005 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 398 kW Min. electrical output 359 kW Max. electrical output 450 kW Thermal production 198,151 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 125 kW Min. thermal output 113 kW Max. thermal output 140 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 155,762 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.246 L/kWh i Fuel energy input 1,532,697 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 41.2 % Mean total efficiency 54.2 % 24 M I M 0m M file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Michae1-Stebbins.htm 4/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Cat 3456 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 0 hr/yr Number of starts 0 starts/yr Operational life 1,000 yr Capacityfactor 0.00 % Fixed generation cost 6.33 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.295 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 0.00 kW Min. electrical output 0.00 kW Max electrical output 0.00 kW Thermal production 0.00EkW Mean thermal output 0.00 Min. thermal output 0.00 Max. thermal output 0.00 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 0 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 L/kWh Fuel energy input 0 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency 0.0 % 24 Cat 3456 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 7,846 hr/yr Number of starts 414 starts/yr Operational life 3.19 yr Capacity factor 32.8 % Fixed generation cost 3.17 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.304 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 1,292,753 kWh/yr kW 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.0 file:H/C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_MichaeI-Stebbins.htm 5/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Mean electrical output 165 kW Min. electrical output 49.5 kW Max electrical output 359 kW Thermal production 414,650 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 52.8 kW Min. thermal output 17.0 kW Max. thermal output 113 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 322,908 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.250 L/kWh Fuel energy input 3,177,414 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 40.7 % Mean total efficiency 53.7 % 24 w 18 15 12 .tarp Cat 3456 r I*. 4tib UIJT[Du 1 I�I C I Mar ' Aor N1av .tun Jul AuQ R Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 431 hr/yr Number of starts Operational life 305 58.0 starts/yr yr Capacityfactor 0.541 % Fixed generation cost 3.17 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.304 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 21,335 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 49.5 kW Min. electrical output 49.5 kW Max electrical output 49.5 kW Thermal production 7,326 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 17.0 kW Min. thermal output 17.0 kW Max thermal output 17. I kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 5,552 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.260 L/kWh I11117-M 'i5 Yi'+f file:H/C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Michae[-Stebbins.htm 6/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Fuel energy input 54,634 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 39.0 % Mean total efficiency 52.5 % 24 m 12 Emissions Pollutant Emissions (kg/yr) Carbon diobde 1,599,813 Carbon mono)ade 3,147 Unburned hydocarbons 349 Particulate matter 237 Sulfur dio)ade 3,225 Nitrogen o)ades 28,085 file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Michael-Stebbins.htm 7/7 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Page 130 Appendix G: Homer System Report of four Northern Power 100 ARCTIC turbines at Stebbins Site 2 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.3150.5047 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Sensitivity case Wind Data Scaled Average: 6.5 EWT 52-900, rho=1.272 Capital Cost Multiplier: 1.02 Northwind100B, rho=1.272 Capital Cost Multiplier: 1.02 Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 System architecture Wind turbine Northwind100B, rho=1.272 Cat 3456 450 kW Cat 3456 450 kW Cat 3456 450 kW Cat 3456 450 kW Cost summary Total net present cost Level ized cost of energy $ 27,431,442 $ 0.481 /kWh Operating cost $ 1,554,466/yr 14.000,000 12.000,000 10,000,000 0 0 8.000,000 0 +8.000,000 a. Z 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 Capital Re la-cerrnt Operating Net Present Costs m /s Fuel Salvage — NorthwindlOOB, rho=1.272 — Cat 3456 — Cat 3456 — Cat 3456 — Cat 3456 — Boiler Other Component Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total Northwind100B, rho=1.272 4,304,910 0 733,460 0 0 5,038,370 Cat 3456 0 0 61,961 3,352,907 0 3,414,867 Cat 3456 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cat 3456 0 0 275,795 6,844,977 0 7,120,772 Cat 3456 0 0 17,842 126,668 0 144,510 Boiler 0 0 0 2,786,443 0 2,786,443 file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_MichaeI-Stebbins.htm 1/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Other 0 0 8,926,488 1 0 0 8,926,488 System 4,304,910 0 10,015,545 13,110,994 0 27,431,448 Annualized Costs Component Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total ($/Yr) ($/Yr) ($/Yr) ($/Yr) ($/Yr) ($/Yr) Northwind100B, rho=1.272 289,358 0 49,300 0 0 338,658 Cat 3456 0 0 4,165 225,368 0 229,533 Cat 3456 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cat 3456 0 0 18,538 460,090 0 478,628 Cat 3456 0 0 1,199 8,514 0 9,713 Boiler 0 0 0 187,293 0 187,293 Other 0 0 600,000 0 0 600,000 System 289,358 0 673,202 881,265 0 1,843,824 7 -1.000,000 w 0 ii-2,000.000 s a G! -A -3.000.000 C 0 Z-4,000.000 54+1111KIDIil 0 1 2 3 4 5 C 7 8 19 10 11 12 13 14 14a 10 If 18 171 ZU Year Number Electrical Component Production Fraction (kWh/yr) Wind turbines 1,042,057 32% Cat 3456 737,454 22% Cat3456 0 0% Cat 3456 1,487,776 45% Cat 3456 26,384 1 % Total 3,293,671 100% Q 1 L1nnfhtu• Aw^rsrs FLw-frir• PrMtmi-#wnn _ 400 9 -- 300 1200 O m 100 0 we d %at 3456 Cat 34, Cat 34;0 Cat 3456 — Capital Replacement : Salvage Operating Fuel ,Jan reu [V1w o%pt iviny gull Jul ^uy .mew rria Barr file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Loca I/Tem p/St_Micha el-Stebbins.htm 2/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Load Consumption Fraction (kWh/yr) AC primary load 3,214,180 100% Total 3,214,180 100% Quantity Value Units Excess electricity 79,478 kWh/yr Unmet load 0.00861 kWh/yr Capacityshortage 0.00 kWh/yr Renewable fraction 0.190 Thermal Component Production Fraction -- (kWh/yr) Cat 3456 231,207 11 % Cat 3456 475,937 23% Cat 3456 9,059 0% Boiler 1,242,849 61 % Excess electricity 79,478 4% Total 2,038,529 100% Monthty Avveraoe Thermal Production .tan Meta Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug pep ua rxav Lr 6o Load Consumption Fraction (kWh/yr) Thermal load 1,986,697 100% Total 1,986,697 100 0 Quantity Value Units Excess thermal energy 51,832 kWh/yr AC Wind Turbine: Northwind100B, rho=1.272 Variable Value Units Total rated capacity 400 kW Mean output 119 kW Capacity factor 29.7 % Total production 1,042,057 kWh/yr Variable Value Units Minimum output 0.00 kW file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Michae1-Stebbins.htm 3/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Maximum output 395 kW Wind penetration 32.4 % Hours of operation 7,230 hr/yr Levelized cost 0.325 $/kWh 24 03 1S 0 X f Cat 3456 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 1,851 hr/yr N umber of starts 426 starts/yr Operational life 13.5 yr Capacity factor 18.7 % Fixed generation cost 6.33 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.295 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 737,454 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 398 kW Min. electrical output 359 kW Max electrical output 450 kW Thermal production 231,207 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 125 kW Min. thermal output 113 kW Max. thermal output 140 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 181,748 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.246 L/kWh Fuel energy input 1,788,404 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 41.2 Mean total efficiency 54.2 1 % 91 M M M 0 M file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Michael-Stebbins.htm 417 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Cat 3456 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 0 hr/yr Number of starts 0 startstyr Operational life 1,000 yr Capacityfactor 0.00 % Fixed generation cost 6.33 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.295 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 0.00 kW Min. electrical output 0.00 kW Max. electrical output 0.00 kW Thermal production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 0.00 kW Min. thermal output 0.00 kW Max. thermal output 0.00 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 0 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 L/kWh Fuel energy input 0 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency 0.0 % 24 Cat 3456 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 8,239 hr/yr Number of starts 342 starts/yr Operational life 3.03 yr Capacityfactor 37.7 % Fixed generation cost 3.17 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.304 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 1,487,776 kWh/yr kW 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.0 file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_MichaeI-Stebbins.htm 5/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Mean electrical output 181 kW Min. electrical output 49.5 kW Max. electrical output 359 kW Thermal production 475,937 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 57.8 kW Min. thermal output 17.0 kW Max. thermal output 113 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 371,040 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.249 L/kWh Fuel energy input 3,651,036 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 40.7 % Mean total efficiency 53.8 % Cat 3456 Output kW 24 1 360 ` e t 1Fled of I I 288 'I"ui I 215 12 11. , 144 io 72 Jan Feb hiaf Apr May Jun Jul ALI Sep �d Nzq Dec Cat 3456 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 533 hr/yr Number of starts 345 starts/yr Operational life 46.9 yr Capacity factor 0.669 % Fixed generation cost 3.17 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.304 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 26,384 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 49.5 kW Min. electrical output 49.5 kW Max. electrical output 49.5 kW Thermal production 9,059 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 17.0 kW Min. thermal output 17.0 kW Max. thermal output 17.0 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 6,866 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.260 L/kWh file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Michae1-Stebbins.htm 6/7 9/11/12 System Report- St Michael -Stebbins Fuel energy input 67,564 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 39.0 % Mean total efficiency 52.5 % 24 Emissions Pollutant Emissions (kg/yr) Carbon dio)ade 1,873,393 Carbon monobde 3,638 Unburned hydocarbons 403 Particulate matter 274 Sulfur dioxide 3,777 Nitrogen obdes 32,460 ! kw 50 40 30 20 10 0 file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Michael-Stebbins.htm 7/7 Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study Appendix H: Homer System Report of one EWT 52-900 turbine at Stebbins Site 2 V3 ENERGY LLC Eagle River, Alaska 907.350.5047 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Sensitivity case Wind Data Scaled Average: 6.5 EWT 52-900, rho=1.272 Capital Cost Multiplier: 1.02 Northwind100B, rho=1.272 Capital Cost Multiplier: 1.02 Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 Cat 3456 Heat Recovery Ratio: 22 System architecture Wind turbine 1 EWT 52-900, rho=1.272 Cat 3456 450 kW Cat 3456 450 kW Cat 3456 450 kW Cat 3456 450 kW Cost summary Total net present cost Levelized cost of energy $ 25,117,220 $ 0.432/kWh Operating cost $ 1,352,388/yr 12,000,000 v► 9.000,000 iq 6.000,000 0 Z 3,000,000 Capital Replaaernent Operating Net Present Costs m /s Fuel baivage — FWT 52-9GO, rho=1.272 — Cat 3456 — Cat 3456. — Cat 3456 Cat 3456 — Boiler 11 Other Com pone nt Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total EWT 52-900, rho=1.272 4,997,105 0 633,379 0 0 5,630,484 Cat 3456 0 0 45,960 2,484,351 0 2,530,311 Cat 3456 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cat 3456 0 0 259,192 5,536,841 0 5,796,032 Cat 3456 0 0 12,955 91,971 0 104,926 Boiler 0 0 0 2,128,988 0 2,128,988 file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Michae1-Stebbins.htm 1/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Other i0 0 8,926,488 1 0 0 8,926,488 System 4,997,105 0 9,877,973 10,242,150 0 25,117,226 Annualized Costs Com pone nt Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage Total ($/Yr) ($/Yr) ($/Yr) ($/Yr) ($/Yr) ($/Yr) EWT 52-900, rho=1.272 335,884 0 42,573 0 0 378,457 Cat 3456 0 0 3,089 166,987 0 170,077 Cat 3456 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cat 3456 0 0 17,422 372,163 0 389,584 Cat 3456 0 0 871 6,182 0 7,053 Boiler 0 0 0 143,101 0 143,101 Other 0 0 600,000 0 0 600,000 System 335,884 0 663,955 688,433 0 1,688,272 l] ;,Z-1,000,000 w 3 ii-2,000,000 s C9 io-3.000,000 c 0 Z-4.000,000 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 10 W 11 12 13 14 10 10 1f 18 1J LLB Year Number Electrical Component Production Fraction (kWh/yr) Wind turbine 2,255,650 56% Cat 3456 546,401 14% Cat3456 0 0% Cat 3456 1,200,218 30% Cat 3456 19,157 0% Total 4,021,426 100% 700 Boo 500 Z!"400 1 300 d 200 100 0 Cat 3456 Cat 3456 i Cat .3456 Cat 3456 capital Replacement Salvage -- Operating — Fuel file:///C:/ Use rs/Doug/A ppData/ Loca I/Temp/St_M icha a I -Ste bbi ns. htm 2/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Load Consumption Fraction (kWh/yr) - -- AC primary load 3,214,180 100% Total 3,214,180 100% Quantity Value Units Excess electricity 807,227 kWh/yr Unmet load 0.00716 kWh/yr Capacity shortage 0.00 kWh/yr Renewable fraction 0.370 Thermal Component Production Fraction s---- (kWh/yr) ••-•— Cat 3456 171,319 7% Cat 3456 385,704 17% Cat 3456 6,578 0% Boiler 949,602 41 % Excess electricity 807,227 35% Total 2,320,430 100% `/ a70+�9R�l WI 0 E 20 m 100 Load Consumption Fraction (kWh/yr) Thermal load 1,986,697 100% Total 1,986,697 100% Quantity Value Units Excess thermal energy 333,733 kWh/yr AC Wind Turbine: EWT 52-900, rho=1.272 Variable Value Units Total rated capacity 900 kW Mean output 257 kW Capacity factor 28.6 % Total production 2,255,650 kWh/yr Variable Value Units Minimum output 0.00 kW - tlJ�a�L 3456 q,C� - Cat .'P�N� Cat �'P4N5�6 Cat 34W Becwzity file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Loca I/Te m p/St_Micha el-Stebbins.htm 3/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Maximum output 889 kW Wind penetration 70.2 % Hours of operation 8,149 hr/yr Levelized cost 0.168 $/kWh 24 Cat 3456 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 1,373 hr/yr Number of starts 343 starts/yr Operational life 18.2 yr Capacity factor 13.9 % Fixed generation cost 6.33 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.295 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 546,401 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 398 kW Min. electrical output 359 kW Max electrical output 450 kW Thermal production 171,319 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 125 kW Min. thermal output 113 kW Max. thermal output 140 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 134,667 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.246 L/kWh Fuel energy input 1,325,126 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 41.2 % Mean total efficiency 54.2 % 24 file:H/C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Michael-Stebbins.htm 4/7 9/11/12 System Report- St Michael -Stebbins Cat 3456 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 0 hr/yr Number of starts 0 starts/yr Operational life 1,000 yr Capacityfactor 0.00 % Fixed generation cost 6.33 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.295 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean electrical output, 0.00 kW Min. electrical output 0.00 kW Max. electrical output 0.00 kW Thermal production 0.00 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 0.00 kW Min. thermal output 0.00 kW Max. thermal output 0.00 1kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 0 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.000 L/kWh Fuel energy input 0 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 0.0 % Mean total efficiency 0.0 % 24 Cat 3456 Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 7,743 hr/yr N umber of starts 413 starts/yr Operational life 3.23 yr Capacity factor 30.4 % Fixed generation cost 3.17 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.304 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 1,200,218 kWh/yr file:H/C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_MichaeI-Stebbins.htm 5/7 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Mean electrical output 155 kW Min. electrical output 49.5 kW Max. electrical output 359 kW Thermal production 385,704 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 49.8 kW Min. thermal output 17.0 kW Max. thermal output 113 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 300,131 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.250 L/kWh Fuel energy input 2,953,290 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 40.6 % Mean total efficiency 53.7 % 21 4 a �s Ci 12 7 Jan Cat 3456 L_07 _iShr1 LJLITPUF i i a I f 3' Ail II I II 11 1 i n( l0 1 hiar Arr A�9su ,l�n Jul R.uo AEG �d Quantity Value Units Hours of operation 387 hr/yr Number of starts 294 starts/yr Operational life 64.6 yr Capacityfactor 0.486 % Fixed generation cost 3.17 $/hr Marginal generation cost 0.304 $/kWhyr Quantity Value Units Electrical production 19,157 kWh/yr Mean electrical output 49.5 kW Min. electrical output 49.5 kW Max. electrical output 49.5 kW Thermal production 6,578 kWh/yr Mean thermal output 17.0 kW Min. thermal output 17.0 kW Max. thermal output 17.0 kW Quantity Value Units Fuel consumption 4,985 L/yr Specific fuel consumption 0.260 L/kWh a iI file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Michae1-Stebbins.htm 6/7 9/11/12 System Report - St Michael -Stebbins Fuel energy input 49,056 kWh/yr Mean electrical efficiency 39.1 % Mean total efficiency 52.5 % 24 Emissions Pollutant Emissions (kg/yr) Carbon diobde 1,463,440 Carbon monobde 2,859 Unburned hydocarbons 317 Particulate matter 215 Sulfur dioxide 2,950 Nitrogen o)ades 25,507 kW .50 ac 20 14 0 file:///C:/Users/Doug/AppData/Local/Temp/St_Michael-Stebbins.htm 7/7 Appendix C Heat Recovery Study STEBBINS, ALASKA HEAT RECOVERY STUDY PREPARED BY: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Division of Environmental Health and Engineering 1901 Bragaw St, Ste 200, Anchorage AK 99508 Phone (907) 729-3600 / Fax (907) 729-4090 September 10, 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The future Stebbins power plant, new water treatment plant (WTP), existing WTP, washeteria, clinic, and head start building and School were evaluated for heat recovery potential. The total estimated annual heating fuel used by all six buildings is approximately 57,000 gallons. The expected annual savings is $240,000 in fuel costs. The payback is based on a 2011 fuel price of $4.21/gallon and an estimated 2011 project cost of $1,243,000. Assuming construction in 2014, the design and construction cost with 2 years of 3% escalation is $1,319,000. The AVEC power plant is currently in design with site work already started. It is expected to provide most of the recovered heat necessary to serve the nearby public buildings. An expected intertie to St. Michael is currently in planning. AVEC is considering integration of wind power generation into its new power plant at some point in the future. The impact of the wind power is unknown at this point, but with an intertie to St. Michael (necessary for wind power), it is expected that there will still be substantial recoverable heat available. 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) reviewed the feasibility of providing recovered heat from the future AVEC power plant (construction beginning in 2012) to the new WTP (construction beginning in 2013), existing WTP, community school, and adjacent community buildings in Stebbins. ANTHC also developed a budgetary project cost estimate based on Force Account Construction, including Engineering and Construction Administration. The new WTP is designed to integrate recovered heat to heat the building, preheat the incoming raw water, and heat two water storage tanks (WSTs). Space has been allocated for a heat recovery heat exchanger and pumps, piping connections have been provided, and the control system is designed for easy integration. The existing WTP provides heat to the circulating water lines and heat to one of the WSTs. The system was not designed for waste heat and will require controls and installation of new heat transfer equipment, including a new heat exchanger and new circulating pumps. Once the water treatment functions have been moved to the new WTP, space will be available for new equipment to be added. The existing washeteria building is hydronically heated. The city reports fuel consumption of 7,400 gallons/year and importantly, much of this load is present in the summer as well as winter. New equipment will include a large brazed plate heat exchanger, a new circulator pump, and controls to prevent back feeding of heat to the generator facility. The existing head start building and community clinic also are hydronically heated. It is anticipated that recovered heat could also be used in these buildings as well. The existing school has a reported fuel consumption of approximately 46,500 gal / year and is hydronically heated with oil fired boilers. A site investigation of the facility has not been done at this time, but it is anticipated that space can be found for a heat recovery heat exchanger, associated pumps and controls. This report assumes that space for heat recovery equipment at the power plant will be included in the construction of the power plant, with necessary controls and heat exchangers in place. Additional assumptions have been made in the development of this report, including, but not limited to, the proposed arctic piping route, building heating loads, and flow rates and pressure drops of the power plant heat recovery system. It is anticipated that refinements in arctic pipe size and routing, pump and heat exchanger sizing, and other design elements will be required as the project progresses to final design. Available as -built information was obtained from AVEC regarding the 2011 power plant electrical loads. End -user annual fuel use was obtained from a variety of sources, including the City, Alaska Rural Utility Cooperative (ARUC), and engineering estimates. Where possible, reported fuel consumption was used to validate engineering estimates. Site visits were made to the existing WTP and washeteria to confirm accuracy of information obtained. 2.0 OVERVIEW The purpose of this study is to provide an estimate of the heat that can be recovered from the AVEC power plant diesel engines and used to offset heating oil consumption at the nearby public buildings. Useable recovered heat is quantified in gallons of heating fuel saved using a gross heating value of 134,000 BTU per gallon of #1 arctic diesel fuel and an overall boiler efficiency of 75% for a net heating value of 100,000 BTU per gallon. The public buildings eligible for heat recovery are located within 600-foot radius of the AVEC power plant. This analysis evaluates the potential to provide recovered heat to the nearby public buildings. The estimated average annual heating fuel consumption for the nearby public buildings is 22,800 gallons. 3.0 ESTIMATED RECOVERED HEAT UTILIZATION A heat recovery utilization spreadsheet has been developed to estimate the recoverable heat based on monthly total electric power production, engine heat rates, building heating demand, washeteria loads, heating degree days, passive losses for power plant heat and piping, and arctic piping losses. The spreadsheet utilizes assumed time -of -day variations for electric power production and heat demand. Power generation data from AVEC for fiscal year 2011 is used in the spreadsheet. The estimated heat rejection rate for the power plant gensets, Caterpillar 3456 series with marine jackets, were used to estimate available recovered heat. Heating degree-days for Stebbins were utilized for this site. All arctic piping is assumed to be routed below grade. All power plant hydronic piping is assumed to be insulated with 2 in of insulation. The proposed conceptual generator plant design was used to estimate the heating load for the power plant, which includes the power house, an insulated storage module, and one living quarters module. The spreadsheet uses monthly heating degree-days to distribute annual fuel consumption by month. The washeteria commercial heating loads are field verified as approximately 80% of maximum utilization for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. The end -user hourly heat load is compared to the hourly available heat from the power plant, less power plant heating loads and parasitic piping losses, and the net delivered heat to the end -user is determined. Following is a summary of annual fuel use and estimated heat utilization in equivalent gallons of fuel for each building: Facility Estimated Estimated Heat Annual Fuel Delivered W/ Intertie Use (Gallons) (Gallons) Old Water Treatment Plant 4,815 4,815 New Water Treatment Plant 5,318 5,318 Washeteria 7,452 2,653 Stebbins School 46,474 39,437 Clinic 2,353 2,353 Head Start Building 2,353 2,353 Total 68,765 56,929 4.0 HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION: The heat recovery system captures jacket water heat generated by the AVEC power plant that is typically rejected to the atmosphere by the radiators. The recovered heat is transferred via below -grade arctic piping to the end users. The objective is to reduce the consumption of expensive heating fuel by utilizing available recovered heat. Although heat recovery is an excellent method of reducing heating fuel costs, recovered heat is a supplementary heat source and it is imperative that the end -user facility heating systems are operational at all times. Hot engine coolant is piped through a plate heat exchanger located at the power plant. Heat is transferred from the engine coolant to the recovered heat loop without mixing the fluids. Controls at the power plant are used to prevent subcooling of the generator engines and reducing electric power production efficiency. The recovered heat fluid is pumped through buried insulated pipe to the end -user facilities, and is typically tied into the end -user heating system using a plate heat exchanger. 4.1 AVEC PLANT TIE-IN Because the AVEC plant is being designed for recovered heat, no modifications to the AVEC power plant cooling system are included or anticipated, except those required to connect the arctic piping to the power plant heat exchangers. All heat recovery piping will be insulated with a minimum of 2-in insulation and have an aluminum jacket where exposed to the weather. All valves will be either bronze ball valves or lug style butterfly valves with seals compatible with 50/50 glycol/water mixtures at 200F. Air vents, thermometers, pressure gauges, drain valves, and pressure relief valves will also be provided. 4.2 ARCTIC PIPING (Recovered Heat Loop) The proposed arctic piping is based on Rovanco's Rhinoflex preinsulated pipe design with a 4-in PEX-A carrier pipe, 1-in polyurethane foam insulation, and HDPE outer jacket. The piping will be buried approximately 2 ft deep and run from the AVEC plant within existing rights -of -way to the end -user buildings. Because multiple users are connected to the system, a variable speed pump located at the new power plant will circulate heating fluid to each user from the AVEC facility. When users are not actively consuming recovered heat, their systems will throttle down heating fluid flow to minimize power consumption. Electric charges for the circulation pump will be shared based on use of recovered heat. The recovered heat fluid will be a 50/50 Propylene Glycol/Water solution to provide freeze protection to the piping. 4.3 END -USER BUILDING TIE-INS End -user building tie-ins typically consist of brazed plate heat exchangers with motorized bypass valves to prevent back feeding heat to AVEC or other users. Plate heat exchangers located in the end -user mechanical rooms will be tied into the boiler return piping to preheat the boilerwater prior to entering the boiler. Where required, a heat injection pump will be used to avoid introducing excessive pressure drop in the building heating system. The maximum anticipated delivered recovered heat supply temperature is about 190F. When there is insufficient recovered heat to meet the building heating load, the building heating system (boiler or heater) will fire and add heat. Off the shelf controls will lock out the recovered heat system when there is insufficient recovered heat available. Typical indoor piping will be type L copper tube with solder joints. Isolation valves will be solder end bronze ball valves or flanged butterfly valves. All piping will be insulated with a minimum of 1-in insulation with an all -service jacket. Flexibility will be provided where required for thermal expansion and differential movement. Air vents, thermometers, pressure gauges, drain valves, and pressure relief valves will also be provided. Each facility will also receive a BTU meter to provide recovered heat use totalization and instantaneous use. 4.4 PRIORITIZATION OF RECOVERED HEAT Recovered heat prioritization is accomplished by setting the minimum recovered heat temperature for each user, with successive load shedding as the recovered heat loop temperature falls. The user with the highest allowable recovered heat temperature will be removed from the system first. The user with the lowest allowable recovered heat temperature will be removed from the system last. The system will also provide freeze protection in the event a user's boiler system temperature falls below a minimum temperature, typically 50-100 degrees F. 4.5 RIGHTS -OF -WAY ISSUES There are no apparent conflicts with rights -of -ways for the arctic piping between the power plant and the end -user buildings, as the route is entirely within existing road rights -of -ways and on city, school and AVEC property. A Heat Sales/Right-of-Entry Agreement will be required between AVEC and the end users to define the parties' responsibilities, detail the cost of recovered heat, and authorize the connection to the power plant heat recovery equipment. 4.1 POTENTIAL RISKS AND UNKNOWNS The location of heating pumps and organization of the piping system is dependent on community, school and AVEC negotiating maintenance and rate structures. The cost estimate included in this feasibility study assumes that there will be two independent heating loops, one for the school and one for the community buildings. This is a conservative approach since a single district heating system would be preferred. If a single heating system can be agreed upon, the benefit would be substantially better than reflected by the costs and fuel savings used in this feasibility study. The AVEC power plant may incorporate wind power but a final determination has not been made. Incorporation of wind turbines to reduce generator power consumption would most likely reduce the amount of recovered heat available, though if marine jacketed engines are used, there is still likely to be sufficient recovered heat available to provide a benefit for the facilities proposed in this study. 5.0 PRELIMINARY EQUIPMENT SELECTIONS The following initial equipment selections are sized and selected based on preliminary data and will require minor modifications to reflect final design. 5.1 Heat Exchangers Based on initial selected flow rates, brazed plate heat exchangers appear to be adequate for all locations. Initial heat exchanger selections are as follows. HX-1: (Power Plant). 1800 MBH capacity Primary: 200 GPM 195F EWT (50% ethylene glycol), 2.0 PSI max WPD Secondary: 200 GPM 190F LWT (50% propylene glycol) 2.0 PSI max WPD HX-2: (Old WTP). 150 MBH capacity. Primary: 17 GPM 185F EWT (50% propylene glycol), 1.0 PSI max WPD Secondary: 17 GPM 180F LWT (50% propylene glycol) 1.5 PSI max WPD HX-3: (New WTP). 150 MBH capacity. Primary: 17 GPM 185F EWT (50% propylene glycol), 1.0 PSI max WPD Secondary: 17 GPM 180F LWT (50% propylene glycol) 1.5 PSI max WPD HX-4: (Washeteria). 500 MBH capacity. Primary: 55 GPM 185F EWT (50% propylene glycol), 1.0 PSI max WPD Secondary: 55 GPM 180F LWT (50% propylene glycol) 1.5 PSI max WPD HX-5: (Clinic). 100 MBH capacity. Primary: 11 GPM 185F EWT (50% propylene glycol), 1.0 PSI max WPD Secondary: 11 GPM 180F LWT (50% propylene glycol) 1.5 PSI max WPD HX-6: (Head Start Building). 100 MBH capacity. Primary: 11 GPM 185F EWT (50% propylene glycol), 1.0 PSI max WPD Secondary: 11 GPM 180F LWT (50% propylene glycol) 1.5 PSI max WPD HX-7: (Stebbins School). 850 MBH capacity. Primary: 95 GPM 185F EWT (50% propylene glycol), 1.0 PSI max WPD Secondary: 95 GPM 180F LWT (50% propylene glycol) 1.5 PSI max WPD 5.2 Arctic Piping The round trip length of heat recovery loop piping between the power plant and most distant facility is approximately 1,100 ft. The arctic piping utilizes 4-in carrier pipe to minimize pressure drop and reduce pumping energy. The pipe itself consists of a 4-in PEX-A carrier pipe with 1-in polyurethane foam insulation and an HDPE outer jacket. The specified product is durable enough for direct bury. The piping and excavated soil will be will be wrapped in geotextile fabric to hold the pipe in the ground in the event of flooding (a big concern in Stebbins). 5.3 Circulating Pumps P-HR1A & 1 B: Heat recovery loop to end -user buildings Flow = 200 GPM, Head = 45 ft Initial Selection: Grundfos TPE series with integrated VFD and differential pressure controller. Approximately 3 HP P-HR2: Heat injection loop in Old WTP Flow = 17 GPM, Head = 15 ft Initial Selection: Grundfos UPS 26-99. P-HR3: Heat injection loop in New WTP Flow = 17 GPM, Head = 15 ft Initial Selection: Grundfos UPS 26-99 P-HR4: Heat injection loop in Washeteria Flow = 55 GPM, Head = 15 ft Initial Selection: Grundfos Magna. P-HR5: Heat injection loop in Clinic Flow = 11 GPM, Head = 15 ft Initial Selection: Grundfos UPS 26-99 P-HR6: Heat injection loop in Head Start Building Flow = 11 GPM, Head = 15 ft Initial Selection: Grundfos UPS 26-99 P-HR7: Heat injection loop in School Building Flow = 95 GPM, Head = 15 ft Initial Selection: Grundfos Magna series 5.4 Expansion Tanks Total heat recovery loop volume is approximately 1000 gallons. Pressure relief at the power plant heat exchanger will be 45 PSIG and the maximum normal operating pressure will be 40 PSIG. ET-1, ET-2, ET-3: System requirements: 200 gallon tank and 100 gallon acceptance Select: three Extrol AX-144V, 77 gallon tank and 34 gallon acceptance 5.5 GLYCOL MAKEUP A glycol make-up system at the new power house will be provided to accommodate filling the system and adding additional glycol. GT-1: Select AXIOM SF100 55 Gal Glycol make-up tank. 5.6 CONTROLS Heat recovery system in each building will use an off the shelf differential temperature controller to actuate a 3-way valve and start/stop heat injection pump (if used). Control will provide load shedding, freeze protection, and prevent backfeeding of boiler heat into heat recovery system. In addition, A BTU meter will be provided at each facility using recovered, displaying instantaneous temperatures and heat transfer, as well as totalizing BTUs used. Differential Controllers: 6 required Tekmar Model 155 differential temperature control Control Valves: CV-1, CV-2: Old & New WTP-: 1-1/2" 3-way motorized control valve with 24v Actuator CV-3: Washeteria 2-1/2" 3 way motorized control valve with 24v Actuator. CV-4, CV-5: Clinic & Head Start-_ 1-1/4" 3-way motorized control valve with 24v Actuator CV-6: School Building: 3" 3 way motorized control valve with 24v Actuator BTU Meters: BTU-1,2 Old & New WTP,: KEP BTU meter with 1-1 /2" magnetic flow meter and matching temperature elements. BTU-3 Washeteria: KEP BTU meter with 2-1 /2" magnetic flow meter and matching temperature elements._ BTU-4,5 Clinic & Head Start: KEP BTU meter with 1-1/4" magnetic flow meter and matching temperature elements. BTU-6 School: KEP BTU meter with 3" magnetic flow meter and matching temperature elements. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Estimated construction costs were determined based on prior recent heat recovery project experience, and include materials, equipment, freight, labor, design, construction management, and startup and testing. All work at the power plant and WTP, along with design and construction management/administration for the complete project, is included in the Base Project cost. Incremental costs for arctic pipe, end -user building renovations, and overhead and freight are estimated individually for each of the other end -user buildings (refer to attached cost estimate). The estimated project cost is $1,243,000. Estimated fuel savings are: • 56,900 gallons ($237,700) for a simple payback of 5.2 years. Payback is based on a 2011 fuel price of $4.21/gallon. Funding for design and construction isn't expected before fall 2013, with construction occurring summer of 2014. With 2 years of escalation at 3%, the estimated project cost in 2014 is $1,319,000. `'. / 2 o ( u o f _ co \ ^' i, a)— Ln [ ` 2 ( $ e ' ; § \to ± \ / \ / } § \ f } � o | _ > , \ 0 o _ c _ | �• \` \ \ ° 2 ° n / � 2 u Z m \ _ / ci ! 0 \ ƒ 2 _ 2 FRI . 0 S S S E / S E g S m m « S S HH/ 1 w HRHAH| � / > / � ® � o � \ { c CL 3 : � : a 7 . ,. . .. [.�.. \(� � � ) � .� .\ + < .| � � � . . \ 3 � . . . . . . § c E S S S S S / E E R 2 / S \ § 9 3 S e STEBBINS, ALASKA ANTHC RECOVERED HEAT STUDY n 0 SHEET LIST TABLE SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE 1 COVER 2 SITE PLAN 3 SYSTEM SCHEMATIC I 4 SYSTEM SCHEMATIC II 5 DETAILS Alaska Native STEBBINS, AK • • Tribal Health Consortium ANTHC RECOVERED HEAT STUDY • Division of Environmental Health and Engineering DATE: 07-16-2012 LAYOUT: COVER 1901 Bragaw Street, Suite 200 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, 99505-3440 DRAWN BY: TH FILE NAME: WBB-G-STSITE (907) 729.3600 CHECKED BY; WF SHEET 1 OF 5 1 Q3' l P Q Z O_ N N U LLJ Q Z Q W W W d S a z w I � Z U LU CL i Q W f U �� I t Q I I N I ' I 1 Q' U t 10 �. �' ♦`/ as .-/ z L Z t w [[ P 4a w3 w a � 1 1 Or U in m Q W N Z t a 1© t Q ; 1 a aI O 00 � Z Q tas of o X N i W 00000 K N O�oq�� 1 O FM-- 1 N 7 Alaska Native STEBBINS, AK • Tribal Health Consortium ANTHC RECOVERED HEAT STUDY Division of Environmental Health and Engineering DATE: 07-16-2012 LAYOUT: SITE 1901 Bragaw Street, Suite = ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, 99508.3440 DRAWN BY: TH FILE NAME: WBB-G-STSITE (907) 729.3600 CHECKED BY: WF SHEET 2 OF 5 Q LLJ >w L�w z OF- OQww>>- �-3=wLn rQ � I� I IL; IV I I� L--_ J a o: Lid o<ON OLdLd>- 0=Ldrn r- IZ 1 Iw I L--_ J r— -------------- aLIJ � = w } I I I U Uj > w la a I zx0�- U O � W >- Q Ln tr Ln I� I r — — - , 1af I F7 I <ZI IQ N I I ZI �'_1 W w I cn Q I I LJLJ — I I _ I I I U a l I I I a a l I I 1 2Uj w Uj I I J I v 3 I I U I cn n 1 I I I I L--- z } a I � 2wZZ o a I = F- v= X V) Uj >Oworan II1I IIII W IN31SkS iV3H I = L------a383A00321 03A1d---- J Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Division of Environmental Health and Engineering 1901 Bragaw Street, Suite 200 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, 99508-3440 (907) 729-3600 STEBBINS, AK ANTHC RECOVERED HEAT STUDY DATE: 07-16-2012 LAYOUT: SCHM I DRAWN BY: TH FILE NAME: WBB-G-STSITE CHECKED BY: WF SHEET 3 OF 5 r---------------------� I � I I Z)U I I zow I UJ of n 0MU) I I I I I I I w I I o I I m I I I I I I I I w I I o I I m I I = I w � I v> Z)"' I� z - I� w zo �=V r Cluj LIS JIW <_IO E<=�IIL — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — IIIIIIIIII J Alaska Native • Tribal Health Consortium Division of Environmental Health and Engineering 1901 Bragaw Street, Suite 200 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, 995083440 (907) 7293600 STEBBINS, AK ANTHC RECOVERED HEAT STUDY DATE: 07-16-2012 LAYOUT: SCHM II DRAWN BY: TH FILE NAME: WBB-G-STSITE CHECKED BY: WF SHEET 4 OF 5 H a W N z a a J � p p 3 V LZ O p J JO - U H J X O Z W W W>- LI_ V)3 0Li dp W W Q FJ-N p NQLLJ to JLLJ-_V.) Y QZ aW 0_0 af WWJm LLJ p Q m O W Q 0D::0MO W LLJ O OOO 00 � ZOD✓ mcrLj O QJV)ZLJ�aM QQ ' Nm W W Z U Z J w VW Q N F- Q JrQ�ZXJN X W003 _j LJ WiVa)r O a J) O 0~000ov)ZCOZ O X Q ZOQO �W NZtoUO W 2 N—CL WL� N //, / \\� z o a o \ J J a N z a a \\/ W = % % //AAA 12" \ i24" a Alaska Native STEBBINS, AK Tribal Health Consortium ANTHC RECOVERED HEAT STUDY Division of Environmental Health and Engineering DATE: 07-16-2012 LAYOUT: DETL 1901 Bragaw Street, Sulte 200 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, 995083440 DRAWN BY: TH FILE NAME: WBB-G-STSITE (907)729.3600 CHECKED BY: WF SHEET 5 OF 5 ofy Q d X d — u « x a ax � F V w m x x Q N m o 7 D 7 w t .6 m m m U❑ m Ou in O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O m 0 d 0 O O O N- C O w w r> OOD co w � a v V m D O C 0 d C W Ew E 'a 4 « 0. `m v 3 J > , «O u U E $ i O U O O L d L aJ+ W 'O a w> a 3 n a ELL a ov Y Y Y d Y E o `d w w; v r °o aDi w w w w m E E_ E E E E •' w -E u u v „ 2 w > > o 3 w W w w w w o w u a a` d E c in 0 0 d O O 0 Y G � +'G.. U i'e = p = _ Y 3 w � Y ~ m U.N U1 d Y w O 2 z E M ad m e y Z rn❑ a a m m z c 0 w c >_ Q d N iz 0 N 2 2 S LL Y dd. 0 co O C 7 V t0 h O d OO N w N t 0 O � D N A w m c i i d w i R U N C � a a ct N r 5 N C 3 (yam v � C - o o Y d J `^ w d m a 2 0 O O O j R E D L L L a E '� ig o ; 'v a c aoi v a10i a10i d 0 m ao_a d dda'a3am �3�', (n ar N N w c y N N d d r J x w w w❑❑ S a O : n z x x c E Q m cy r d D N c O 2 S S 2 S 2 x? 7 D D 7 D o c m m m m G~0 I.-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 a m 2 O O 0 O L M M l0 V 0 3 c m m c w D 0 Q L O O C p, ~ Y E a w 0 o N $= O o E 0 d � c d „m o „ c W. a V d d w 0 3 0 m E a ° m 0 ° ' L w O E „ o c S Q 3 c @ w= m o vi v c wv x d Q O w « ❑ r O 0 V m "O c- o o - E E `o L nGn a+ m 0 m w O LL v a v w w ❑ � 0 O ❑ S S 2 2 2 S 2 2 S S m m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 o m O M o .+ 00 0A 000 0� 0 O N W m W n 0 r 0- `� N N E � O Q 00 O d 0 e s w y m w 3 C O s E FE w = o E c F w d v v ¢ > J 0 y O o `v v w E m J v ii 0 p m O .. v Y> v o d m D_ W in in S¢ C7 O O Y> Q d S � y, 'O , 0 0 0J h0 h0 m E N' L0 W m✓ a+ m 0 0 V= l:J a Cl m 0 S S \3 nM N 1 m mn M 0 Om an nl!1 O, m dd = N- O m n m m m O N N m g a '� � � .•i V1 n M N n ri m N M lR .ti N V Q M M aV 2 w VNl O M a N N W ++ x � c m =3� a' m m a � N d d rv�� ro in m �o o a n po m m w w m o� N- w m « O � x .-i m n N m m N m lfl a rov v m m v a y y= u�i ✓l m vNi u�i � C m N y x•v3� q £ W cG •• W N N N m �Il ti O O 00 .l1 N V1 ill a a a O V a 7 if1 111 C O pf 2 x C W W m M O m a m Ill m d o m` n to oc m m � \ b � a O m •q t N m po n .+ m v po m ago a w n .ti 0 N ul V '- 2 � -_...- - N 00 m W .-I lf1 n ✓1 N O l0 V O W l!1 N lD m m N m 0 V V m m m N N N m a V Y Q LC M N m m m m m m m M m m o 0 L� Iov�omvN.-�mnn �n m A m c w O t c m m n .+ m m m In to a n O n n o m- .-1 - n V1 m t� N N N .�•� N N N .�-1 .�i N 2 3 O w M .-1 V m m n m �O N V 1 O N .M n N m 0 w m M \« C x ltl n M n o ltl O o n m O m� ca � m .� o m m m o .•+ Y r2 N L 2• r L o 2 N LL� Q� O O Q Vpll O Z D .-I m n N N m N .-I m M m a+ 9 N N 10 .M-1 �y 1p m lD n m m .ai N W C x E £ m 0 0 0 s � m 0 u � V Q O O O O O N N N N O 0 0 c m a w v v v a C m 2 x a W m x N 3J r x x 5 � \ Q m x 2 m �3 c m m � C � N l!1 O N O N O l0 n m Vf a m m O .Ni N N eM•1 ei .O•I M N .N•I C m H J O W W m 0 'a m o m ry m W m 0 � m lD n m m N N .ill -I .-I N lmit m o x LL x 10 v Q Q N O Z 3 G O S N N e�-I OMt l0 C M M VOf OMO O N m M M M N N N N N N N M M A O H 9 N Lq ifl N N Vl V1 111 Vl ✓1 Vl ill N N N N N N N N N N � _ OO OO W �0 00 00 OO W W 00 00 M 'O = q y m J 'L d 3— E m m m to h h o N o a m m q v L 3 a v o N a v c o v •� m m = L >' q o 0 U W W ti ill d' O1 toD 01 w N o o 0 o m n in a o to m z = v y 'm m m ry m ti m m o m v�i m ro m m m N N m m m m y c a = o m c m O w � s 3 m m v ro m m� m� n in ti = q m q W Q — F q 73= n n h in v M N N m ll1 h W m N N N N N N N N N N N N L E — E 3 o m �aam�v.�+aOO�mvv w N m L q W W jN = C — N oa rn m ul .� to o m �n n In e0 '� O C q S m — 2 O q C C = VI q O — a q = 3 � vvam.O1-l.N-lnmNNmv c = 10 = m V 00 h N M tp N h 00 N tt �(1 h n n n N N t� Ui tt1 l0 V �D n 1 F m � 3 C A = m 3 W y m m co tD M N rl 'i N «1 n O1 q G C C F i+ q m m co us m o o m h m to a .i n m io m w N rn 'r= ooMlonhaomoo m a c 2 m \ CO a a O ff= ul n ao � In h m ul v o n Ol W N v m m o m In m co m m m m m N N m m m m m g3.a,s S L >• ti > > '° v ¢ cS ¢ v O Z OO WI 6 E E U Y« N M n M M ri N N 7 N m q IYf tt1 N rtl N .--I N N Kl - rt1 N1 lD C E E — VF V} VT VF N Vl V' VT N N V1 N O G V N l0 Ol M Vl ill n Q1 m l0 I� Ol d m^ V 0 N O� M M l0 tD O1 <D a o M ry Ill M V VI N n V1 h C C) V O Vi VT H N Vl h N Vf vn V! V} V 0 i~/)• O L c � _ 3 N a W l0 tD rI M A W n N O pp y y n Ol N N 00 Ill m n o N l!1 Ql V V O tD 00 01 l0 M N m N O1 C 4 OQ C N N N Vl VHF — H N N— N N ti Vf A G '� N 'O a ao o .r vl o lc o o m to M M _ W W in N l0 M vl of 0 0 0 0 tl1 M� M .y W O Ol C Ol T •i ei N N M W 4im .-. C jp r•I ei ei •'I ei ei 'i N 'i « N Ol n tD tD l0 CO O1 n tD Ill n l!1 l0 O n •E ^ cI M N l 1p Ol n N I T Ol a r-I W lD D n E VT Vf N C � O O VF +/� Vl tR V' VF N N Vf e�i N � V � w M n W lD M V1 n Ol M A m n M o w m n n ll� N O N m m N n� Im M to N 01 Yl f0 j w n n. Ifl N N It l n M. N N-- N Vl N----- C L U= O p O N w 3 = 00 .-. N M V1 1p N a M V1 l0 Ifl N Ill M Vl 01 Ol n N n R w w LL m N n to m In n In m Lc N m o w �1 oo Q1 N d' N� M Ol ' � II1 N VF to 01 Ol O A O N In +/� Lf V1 VF V1 V1 t? N O) t0 n O1 tp W M 00 I� N Of N O1 m 'O A W v {� t0 V1 U1 '•I Yt N r•I V YI •i I� O O o0 n M 0 Ol .9 M C C O Vl N Ol C W ti n Yf Vl vl a N N N M IA tp 40 N n O Ol t0 Vf Vl a V1 N n u1 l0 w —y m Ol M O M O Ol .•I M R 1� a m 00 Op 00 t0 O N N N M I!1 1� W� 1� - — c W � E c" w m L l7 A 3 tp .-I O n M M Cq n N Ol Ill N N R n N IIl n n N 0 tp O N M t0 a 0 N n l7 t0 1!1 Vl V r-I N � ill l0 N � O L h C 01 CO N � W Il1 t0 O O N N N m M m N W of j0 IY = M N N N rl 'i N N N - l7 .0 U a In In In m .. v v a a m v In M t ^ 5 m In 3 � }� l7 O m= 00 0 0 ' 00 00 0 m Ol •� 0 O 0 0 00 Y7 0 O o o f0 U) 0 0 V) N 0 O R Le! N N N O M O N Vi Vi VJ 01 V! Vi Vi VJ V! V! VJ V) V) V) V! H Vi V) W. 0 N O L ot00 O O ON LO N 00 N LL y J 000 O O 00 O 0 O O 00 co o o ' 0 o O N ' 0 ' 100 ' ' f00 O ' 0 O 2 nj O a N N M O O w M N w W Q O F V3 6% Vi V! Vf V! Vi 6% di Vi V3 V) V! w) V) 0% Ofl V! V! Vi V1 V! V3 V! Vi Vi m V! V! V! V! V) Vi Vi W 000 0 0 O N r N M O M n O U ei Vs 6% N 0 0 N O N O 0 OOOO O O Z N N Ac)� O �O N C N C O _ i i i O -a c N E > C C N S N« ««« a W l0 y a aN C in in in aLL�U C7 C9 aLL a� - R O 00 0 0 0000 �O Y1 fr a a 0 �O Cl)O CD N M O 10 Y1 N • jq O O 00 O O O O O O ' W W O O M V �O pJ M 00 V' co M LO ' Of w' 0'J co O N cl ' OD 7 N 10 ' CD Yf ' 10 V ' G h ' N OV ' co OD F, J O N La N N N U p H Vi V! V!V!N W W VlNN VrNN VtN Vt i9N V)HM V!M W M V! WV1N "I", 1/►V)H V1 W H19 U Z aagwnld vn O O ''? Cl)O u� N O > ieoo� m w jolejedo ,o N m m 1e30-1 _ Of joqel H N N N N N N N w C 'n leoo� M o 0 v pe0-1 Maio o uJ Bulddlys Cl! 00 N 17 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 jagwnld N ro o 0 0 U� 0 5 `o ueloploa13 r` O N N t luegoeFw N mrNMNmrr7 N N 0'OOO:Q� 00!.�fdLoE00 0 OOtONNEiw UO CD 0ojoseadp ID�aaulBu3 N 0 JadnS r` q OON(n0te O Cl O 0 17 O x x x LL LL LL O�ycr O O flOO � O i0 O O O LQ 0 O A o d uS NOmE-v N O u 0 N O O— LO 0co 00 N N N 0 0 V O O O CO 7 VO F O O O UON7 O O OOO NUy0 0: N N NOOZ N N aCOo O ov >m 'mNWULL=mUy. 0 cc � Z a N a y C U OID C I C N C NS 1 lN N > 22 N 22 V N m D c d� o= naoO v od 3 oovnm wUSLH2mw x 0 mmw(D xmof m m ov mO c ° x' xOo c w 0 « C Ll N m m L o C j 0 Q H fV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 00000 00000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 co 0 0 0 o 0 o c o o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 o c o o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 O N O O O N O O ao f0 O O 07 O o O V; N O M O) N fD O O O O N N M � N w O O O a N N M- N M O O O W N N M N M O O O v N N M (O O �_ O O c? N O M fD N N 0 0 N O O I: o� N GD r n d' Cl (O - O) N M N M N I� N N N (O N t0 N N N f0 M N N V� Vi V) V! 0. V! 603,61). VJ 6% Vi V> VJ VJ V) V) V! VJ V) Vi V! V! f9 V) V) V! V! V! V► Vi V) V) V) V) f,f V7 V> VJ V) V! Vi f9 V> VJ V> V! 69 V) dJ V3.613 000 O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 N O 0 N O o o O 0 0 N N o N O o o o 0 0 N N 0 w 0 0 O O 0 0 N N O N O O O O O O N N O O o 0 o O 0 0 N O 0 N 000 O O O V) O N N �- o M o sT M O) - o a M O a M O a co O a M 0 �7 M fD - N N Cl) M N N Vi 6e f9 Vi d) VT 6% 6% VJ V) V) V) 6% Vi Vi V> V) 'A if! V) W VJ V) V) 69 V) Vi " (0 V! V) V) V) V! V} 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O o O O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 000 0 O O 0000 O O O O O O O 0000 O O O O O O 000 O O O O O O O N O O N 0 0 0 a0 O O O O b O O O O M O O O O CO O O N O 0 C C 0 (O O O O O N T N V N w r co � N CO - fO V N- O M N O M N N fD N N N N co N N M co dt V! VT V) V3 VJ VJ V) d) V) " VD. V! V! W> V) V! V! V) VJ V) H Vi VJ V! VT V) V) VJ V> V) V! V! Vi V> M, VJ V) V! Vi V> V) O 0 O O 0 0 O N 0 O O O G G O O O O O O O O M O O O O O O O O M O o 0 0 0 o 0 0 f0 0 0 O O 0 o O O Cl) 000 O O 0 O O (O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 N 000 coo 0 O O C) O O N O N N 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O C 0 0 0 O O O N O O O O N I� O n O_ Cl) (V M CO V N N 00 � N- O_ Cl) N- 0 Cl) N- N w N N N N (V M M N f9 E9 V> V) VT V) Vi V! V> V> f9 Vi VJ V) V) f9 V) VJ V) V! V) V) V) Vi f9 V) V) V! !9 di H Vf " 6% f9 V! Vf V> V) VJ Vi N N aM � N M 0pI M0NNo7 N NIT T NT N C C C C C C C Y m LL ia LL N N LL y O LL y O LL to O i0 LL °� y O N LL y Q O N y O l0 °� y O EU nN °� n N n 4) 2 N 2 n(i E 3 W O U N O-X c O j M y E U) fU nX C E 0 3 7 y fU O'X C E o 7 7 y N nX C E cc 3 3 y O-X C E 0 7 y O•X c E o 7 7 y nX c o 7 7 d 2 U F a Q a s U a 5 a s U a a x U a 5 a x U a 5 a x U a 5 a s U a 5 m LL Q (:J O O 010.00 O O O O' O O O O O ' DO MNO ' DNI(DN 'O O) V M f V wNM N MO m 0A coM P fA PN 0M M Cl Cl) C* 03 O- V) M- Cl) N Cl)M (DM NN V/ V1 f9 V9, M N V1 V►VWWHVi V/H W V) Vl WW W fA V1 VlHM WT V/ /9 W W MN V! V/N I910 NN V! Vl VlH MH V! N N O O O O O O O O N O N N O 0 N N N o O N O N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O 00 M O O O M 0000. 0099 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 O o 0 0 O O O O 00 O O (V - N -V- N N N N .-• N N M M N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O NO O NO O O 0 0 O 0 0 c;N O N N T4_ N N Y Co C y C C C C C F O O O O O O _ N Uc O U r((pp O (p C y N y fU fU a2m0 mn o o oTy oT oc ocO yOO c x rn E co rn E co nrn E co a E co tam c oE orn m C g Nc 0 NCSU0 Z) cUT NC Cyfn lC0 C C TfA N C C c Em ) CZ M 3-9 O O O rcE fA 0 EO C C Q CO Q Fc cO N ) N U O p Cr0 C 3 O'c- r -C y- O X O 1: M w M.G dYTy o X o y 0 X O y t5 N X 5c, O y UCoS o fD X O mssU N X c N X CUOL > 7 U UT o : a o a U w m r fU d O C L H L G x m in EL O U O O 00 O O O 00 O O O O_ O O O O W) N 0) N U O fA fA fA Vf 09. 09l fA fH fR fii 6% 09, 60 f9 u9 V> fA O O N M M (n0 N Go O O O O r Cl) n O O LL V c L f0 cr0 u7 + Q1 Cl N 0) �,6� M HJ fA El) fA fA fA N O O O O Im co C N O V O) N 00 'd N cf T ~ C� N LL C e aL la c d fA ffT 69 f9 fH f9 fR fR fA VJ fH fA f9 f:T fA 69 f9 6-3+W ' + O oCo U M 9` N O 00 N 00 O g-TV+ c N c O E V% _ N + N C > fA f9 f9 ~ 0 M m + `o a Q N ry rOn m O v >. N V N O1 C N al N L 7 W LL LL O *0 M Q eli 0 O O O O O O O O W 01 w t0 N VVV'" N ' M N N O ' O O , f- fq N f0 n O O a N O N 0 N N M H 11 N /A W W N W W M Vl Ul fA fA f/l N N fN 19 4& W V! V/ O c a J N N � N N N N N N N N N N O O a Lq O 0 co N � O N O 0 0 O M O O O 00 N O O N N M LO O N N V N O aD N N N M 0 N 0 0 N 0 N U, CM 0 0 0 N O O I T T ID Im O- la yy C J O �N La 2 0- p C N C N O m 07 fu C 'c c LL y c Y. L 0 N O. O' O O m O 7 a 0 3 `O E aL �° cU 57 Ti v d o E 0� "m. m 3cc 1 '= m c�� ~� C 0'm La R Urn o h o=Lo��o- >� a hod N in 0 N E •O c 0) «O. C C` N s d Ci a 0 C 'O C S to {cp 0 E F'j N fa O- Fn D_ - O U C c 10IDL'uO E naJc R LLE 15 '�a 0 03 c0c O c• a c o o' 3 m c0 'u m c c d R W LL Li c c ii ii a vLi ii Q iii d C Of O c> 1 N O 9 C N o ii c a o Y n 8 an d L d 2 O U N c C 'O E O Q O d g 0 N E 0 m• _� 3 d E tii 0 0 M5, d aa)i w 0� o a vN o E Q ° 5 E E U 3 d CL M o. Appendix D September 16, 2011 Memo September 19, 2011 Trip Report HATI'ENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants MEMORANDUM DATE: September 16, 2011 File No: 11-013 TO: Matt Metcalf, Project Manager Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative FROM: Mark Swenson, P.E., Project Engineer Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell Engineering Consultants RE: Preliminary Research for Wind Turbine Siting in Stebbins At the request of the Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative (AVEC), Hattenburg Dilley & CIVIL Linnell (HDL) Engineering Consultants performed preliminary research for two possible sites ENGINEERING for wind turbine construction in Stebbins, Alaska. HDL and AVEC selected two wind tower locations for the feasibility study to analyze for potential environmental effects, land use, accessibility to the site, constructability of the site, and available wind resources. See Figure GEOTECHNICAL 1 for the wind tower locations. These sites will be evaluated by HDL and V3 Energy during ENGINEERING our upcoming site visit to Stebbins. Also, during our site visit we will meet with community members to get local feedback about the proposed locations and hear suggestions about any alternative wind tower sites. Feasible sites suggested by the village will also be TRANSPORTATION investigated. ENGINEERING Background Information Relocation of the existing AVEC's power plant and construction of a new AVEC bulk fuel ENVIRONMENTAL storage facility is currently ongoing in Stebbins. These Upgrades are necessary to move the SERVICES power plant off State-owned lands, elevate the facility above the flood plain, and increase tankage to provide adequate capacity for a future 10-mile intertie to the neighboring community of St. Michaels. As part of the intertie project, a new primary power plant is planned in Stebbins with switch gear and controls configured to accommodate future wind PLANNING turbine power generators. A future wind turbine project is planned in Stebbins to reduce the community's dependence on imported diesel fuel and provide an alternate source of renewable energy. According to the AEA Alaska high resolution wind resource map, the Stebbins region has a class 3 wind regime. A meteorological (met) tower was installed on St. Michael's Native Corporation (SMNC) land between Stebbins and St. Michaels in 2010. The met tower is currently collecting wind data that suggests the existing wind regime is this location is suitable for wind power generation. However, the met tower is located close to SMNC's gravel source and the Corporation is unwilling to release the land for wind farm development. Therefore, two alternate wind tower sites have been selected for research of accessibility, constructability, land use, and environmental permitting and concerns. 3335 Arctic Boulevard Suite 100 • Anchorage Alaska 99503 Phone: 907.564.2120 Fax: 907.564.2122 202 W. Elmwood Avenue Suite 1 Palmer Alaska 99645 Phone: 907,746.5230 Fax: 907.746.5231 RE: Preliminary Research for Wind Turbine Siting in Stebbins September 16, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Wind Tower Site 1 The following sub -sections discuss the site location, available access, environmental documentation necessary for the site and the land use for the wind tower site 1. Location and Description Tower site 1 is located approximately 1.2-miles north of the Stebbins Airport area (Latitude 63° 32' 01" N, Longitude 162° 16' 40" W) as shown in Figure 1. The site is located approximately 150-feet above sea level, on a plateau adjacent to the Norton Sound. The terrain surrounding the tower site is relatively flat with grades that are approximately 0-6%. Access and Constructability Tower site 1 is currently located adjacent to the road that travels from Stebbins to St. Michaels. If tower site 1 is developed, an estimated 200-foot long access road would have to be developed from the existing roadway to the site. The access road would be approximately 16-feet wide. Currently there are three potential gravel sources located on St. Michaels Island as shown on Figure 1. The grade of the proposed road would range between 0 and 6 percent. Land Use Tower site 1 is located on a lot owned by the Stebbins Native Corporation. AVEC will request permission from the Stebbins Native Corporation to visit and evaluate the wind tower site on St. Michaels Island. Upon receipt of an approved Statement of Non -Objection AVEC, HDL and V3 Energy will complete a site visit and evaluation the site. Permitting and Environmental Concerns The following lists the environment documentation is required to construct a wind tower on site 1: • Submit a letter to SHPO requesting a decision on archaeological resources in the project area. • Submit a Jurisdictional Determination with the Corps of Engineers (COE) regarding wetlands at the project site. Due to the upland location it is unlikely that the site is a wetland area. • File form 7460-1 to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at least 45 days before construction or when construction permits are filed, whichever is earliest. • Submit a consultation letter to the US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) outlining the project with a request for a biological opinion. HATfENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants RE: Preliminary Research for Wind Turbine Siting in Stebbins September 16, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Wind Tower Site 2 The following sub -sections discuss the site location, available access, environmental documentation necessary for the site and the land use for the wind tower site 2. Location and Description Tower site 2 is located approximately 2.1-miles southeast of the Stebbins Airport (Latitude 63' 30' 25" N, Longitude 162' 12' 57" W) as shown in Figure 1. The site is located approximately 80-feet above sea level, adjacent to the Clear Lakes. The terrain surrounding the tower site is relatively flat with grades that are approximately 0 to 6 percent. Access and Constructability Tower site 2 is currently located adjacent to a roadway access to the Clear Lakes. If tower site 2 is developed, an estimated 100-foot long access road would have to be developed from the existing roadway to the tower site. The access road would be approximately 16- feet wide. Currently there are three potential gravel sources located on St. Michaels Island as shown on Figure 1. The grade of the proposed road would range between 0 and 6 percent. Land Use Tower site 2 is located on a lot owned by the St. Michaels Native Corporation. AVEC will request permission from the St. Michaels Native Corporation to visit and evaluate the wind tower site on St. Michaels Island. Upon receipt of an approved Statement of Non -Objection AVEC, HDL and V3 Energy will complete a site visit and evaluation the site. Permitting and Environmental Concerns The following lists the environment documentation required to construct a wind tower on site 2: • Submit a letter to SHPO requesting a decision on archaeological resources in the project area. • Submit a Jurisdictional Determination with the Corps of Engineers (COE) regarding wetlands at the project site. Due to the upland location it is unlikely that the site is a wetland area. • File form 7460-1 to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at least 45 days before construction or when construction permits are filed, whichever is earliest. • Submit a formal Section 7 consultation letter to the USFWS. Due to the location of wind tower site 2 being near wetlands, mitigation and avoidance measures for impacts to threatened and endangered species and migratory birds will likely be required. '1 HATTENBURG DILLEY & UNNELL { Engineering Consultants RE: Preliminary Research for Wind Turbine Siting in Stebbins September 16, 2011 Page 4 of 4 Summary and Recommendations AVEC, HDL and V3 Energy will travel to Stebbins to evaluate the two wind tower sites. HDL will have a geotechnical engineer to determine potential conflicts with the in -situ soil at the tower sites, and a civil engineer to determine potential access to the sites. V3 Energy will have an aerospace engineer specializing in wind resources to assess the available wind resources. Once the tower location is selected a met tower will be constructed to collect data and determine if a wind tower is feasible for the location. Attachments: Figure 1- Wind Tower Site 1 & 2 Locations H:\)obs\11-013 Stebbins Wind Feasibility Study (AVEC)\Memo\Stebbins Wind Study Memo_9-12-2011.doc LjrNM 1 HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants CIVIL ENGINEERING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING SURVEYING CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION MATERIAL TESTING L��HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants DATE: September 22, 2011 TO: Matt Metcalf, AVEC Project Manager FROM: Mark Swenson, P.E. RE: September 19, 2011 Stebbins Wind Site Investigation Report On Monday September 19, 2011, Mark Swenson (HDL), John Thornley (HDL), Matt Metcalf (AVEC), and Doug Vaught (V3 Energy) flew to Stebbins to investigate two proposed preliminary wind tower sites. We departed Anchorage via Security Aviation charter at 8:00 AM and arrived in Stebbins at approximately 9:40 AM. Also on the charter were Janie Dusel (HDL), Dana Keene (AVEC) and Mark Teitzel (AVEC), who were traveling to Stebbins to inspect the progress of the AVEC and Community bulk fuel facilities that are currently being constructed by STG, Inc. Kirk with STG met us at the airport with a truck and a 6-wheeler. We drove to STG's camp and then walked to the AVEC bulk fuel farm to inspect the construction. Matt, Doug, John and I left the AVEC site at approximately 10:00 AM and drove to the existing met tower site located on an elevated cinder cone rock formation between Stebbins and St. Michaels. See attached Site Map for met tower location. Doug inspected the met tower while John, Matt, and I inspected the top of the cinder cone. We sampled and inspected the exposed rock and viewed the surrounding terrain. Doug informed us that the met tower baseline settings were different than he initially anticipated and the wind data would have to be adjusted to reflect the field conditions. The cinder cone is not a viable wind tower site because it is a gravel source owned and operated by the St. Michaels Village Corporation. The Corporation has stated that it will not relinquish a viable and profitable material source for wind farm development. From the cinder cone, we identified two alternative wind tower sites with flat or gently sloping terrain and good north/south exposure. The sites are identified below and shown on the attached site map: • St. Michaels Site 1: Lat: N 63°30'09.56" Long: W 162°11'23.81" Elev:±130' • St. Michaels Site 2: Lat: N 63°30'46.54" Long: W 162010'56.31" Elev:±175' St. Michaels Site 1 is located on a bluff to the south of the road, approximately 0.70 miles southeast of the met tower. We parked along the road and walked the site. The terrain was dry and ground cover consisted of tundra with the occasional low alder bush. Subsurface conditions at the site are anticipated to include shallow to significant soil deposits with warm permafrost. It should be anticipated that any rock encountered will be frost fractured to depths of 8 to 10 feet below the surface and may be weathered and friable to depth. The most likely foundation types for wind turbines at this location are a mass gravity mat foundation or deep foundation consisting of driven piles or helical piers. This site lies within the Part 77 airspace of St. Michaels' Runway 02/20 and further coordination with the FAA is 3335 Arctic Boulevard Suite 100 Anchorage Alaska 99503 Phone: 907.564.2120 Fax: 907.564.2122 202 W. Elmwood Avenue Suite 1 Palmer Alaska 99645 Phone: 907.746.5230 Fax: 907.746.5231 RE: September 19, 2011 Stebbins Trip Report September 22, 2011 Page 2 of 2 required prior to erection of a met tower or wind turbines in this location. See attached preliminary FAA Notice Criteria worksheets. St. Michaels Site 2 is located approximately 0.4 miles east of the existing met tower. The site is located on a ridge line extending from the cinder cone that appears to be an old basalt flow. We viewed the site from the top of the cinder cone but did not walk the terrain. It is likely that shallow organics and soils overlie basalt and other volcanics in this location. It should be anticipated that the underlying rock is frost fractured to depths of 8 to 10 feet below the surface and may be weathered and friable to depth. Possible foundation types for wind towers at this site include mass gravity mat foundations and rock anchors if the volcanics are encountered at shallow depths. Construction would also include clearing dense patches of alders and constructing a 0.5 mile road from the cinder cone access road to the proposed site. This site lies within the Part 77 airspace of St. Michaels' Runway 02/20 and further coordination with the FAA is required prior to erection of a met tower or wind turbines in this location. See attached preliminary FAA Notice Criteria worksheets. We traveled from St. Michaels Site 2 to Stebbins Site 1 at approximately 12:00 PM. The Stebbins site is located on a plateau near the city landfill. The location is identified below and shown on the attached site map: • Stebbins Site 1: Lat: N 63°31'56.58" Long: W 162016'50.64" Elev:±155' We walked the terrain and inspected the site. The site is located adjacent to the existing road to St. Michaels and gravel is readily available nearby. The ground cover was composed of tundra and no ponding or excess moisture was observed. The site subsurface is likely composed of organics and shallow soils overlying basalt and other volcanics. Frost fractured rock is anticipated to depths of 8 to 10 feet below the surface and may be weathered and friable to depth. Possible wind tower foundation types include mass gravity mat foundations and rock anchors if the volcanics are encountered at shallow depths. Doug identified this site as the preferred location for a met tower, and AVEC agreed. An existing rebar stake is located in the tundra at the preferred met tower location. Icing and wind resources will be measured at the met tower to determine the suitability of the site for wind generation. AVEC plans to have STG install the met tower at the site this fall. The Stebbins site lies within the Part 77 airspace of Stebbins' Runway 05/23 and further coordination with the FAA is required prior to erection of a met tower or wind turbines. FAA coordination is likely to include petitioning the Stebbins Airport Manager to change the traffic pattern to "right traffic" for Runway 05. See attached preliminary FAA notice criteria work sheets. We departed Stebbins at approximately 1:00 PM. On the way back to Anchorage we stopped in Shaktoolik to inspect two recently erected wind turbines. We also circled Elim and Koyuk to get a preliminary view of the landscape for future wind tower siting work in those communities. The plane refueled in Unalakleet and we arrived back in Anchorage at approximately 5:00 PM. H:\jobs\11-013 Stebbins Wind Feasibility Study (AVEC)\Correspondence\September 19, 2011 Stebbins Trip Report.docx 1 HAiTEN$URG D!i LEY & UNNEII Engineering Consultants � \ ic Im X uj 0 Q) Notice Criteria Tool t S+• �s�t' S� https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/extemal/gisTools/gisAction jsp?action=d... The requirements for filing with the Federal Aviation Administration for proposed structures vary based on a number of factors: height, proximity to an airport, location, and frequencies emitted from the structure, etc. For more details, please reference CFR Title 14 Part 77 9. You must file with the FAA at least 45 days prior to construction if • your structure will exceed 200ft above ground level s your structure will be in proximity to an airport and will exceed the slope ratio • your structure involves construction of a traverseway (i.e. highway, railroad, waterway etc...) • your structure will emit frequencies, and does not meet the conditions of the FAA Co -location Policy A your structure will be in an instrument approach area and might exceed part 77 Subpart C • your structure will be on an airport or heliport If you require additional information regarding the filing requirements for your structure, please identify and contact the appropriate FAA representative using the Air Traffic Areas of Responsibility map for Off Airport construction, or contact the FAAAirports Region f District Office for On Airport construction. The tool below will assist in applying Part 77 Notice Criteria. Latitude: ® Deg (30 M 9.56 S ❑N Longitude: 162 Deg 11 M 23.81 S F Nortzontal Datum: NAD83 Site Elevation (SE): t30 (nearest foot) Structure Height (AGL): 150 (nearest foot) Traverseway: No Traverseway (Additional height Is added to certain structures under 77.9(c)) Is structure an airport: t No Yes Results You exceed the following Notice Criteria: Your proposed structure is located within proximity to an airport for which the OFAAA source is not able to provide airporthunway data therefore this tool cannot calculate part 77 notice requirements and return a result. An aeronautical study is needed to obtain the data and evaluate the proposal. The FAA, in accordance with 77.9, requests that you file. 77.9(b) by 48 ft. The nearest airport is SMK, and the nearest runway is 02/20. The FAA requests that you file 11 wiZ nP%I f. Ail v..1A nil Notice Criteria Tool https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction jsp?action... R -fl nhi i-ini i C. $A nwe Notice Criteria Tool https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction. j sp?action=d... The requirements for filing with the Federal Aviation Administration for proposed structures vary based on a number of factors: height, proAmity to an airport, location, and frequencies emitted from the structure, etc. For more details, please reference CFR Title 14 Part 77.9. You must file with the FAA at least 45 days prior to construction if: . your structure will exceed 200ft above ground level . your structure will be in pro)dmity to an airport and will exceed the slope ratio r your structure involves construction of a traverseway (i.e. highway, railroad, waterway etc..) o your structure will emit frequencies, and does not meet the conditions of the FAA Co -location Policy 6 your structure will be in an instrument approach area and might exceed part 77 Subpart C your structure will be on an airport or heliport If you require additional information regarding the filing requirements for your structure, please Identify and contact the appropriate FAA representative using the Air Traffic Areas of Responsibility map for Off Airport construction, or contact the FAA Airports Region ! District Office for On Airport construction. The tool below will assist in applying Part 77 Notice Criteria. Latitude: ®Deg 30 M 46.54 S FN Longitude: 162 Deg F1 07-1 M 55.31 S ❑W Horizontal Datum: NAD83 Site Elevation (SE): 175 (nearest foot) Structure Height (AGQ: 150 (nearest foot) Traversevray: No Traverseway (Additional helght is added to certain structures under 77.9(c)) Is structure on airport: t No Yes Results You exceed the following Notice Criteria. Your proposed structure is located within proArnity to an airport for which the OFJWA source is not able to provide airport/runway data therefore this tool cannot calculate part 77 notice requirements and return a result. An aeronautical study is needed to obtain the data and evaluate the proposal. The FAA, in accordancewith 77.9, requests that you file. 77.9(b) by 105 ft. The nearest airport is SMK, and the nearest runway is 02/20. The FAA requests that you file 11 n:7 n m 1 inn11 c.nz ill I Notice Criteria Tool https:Hoeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.j sp?action=d... I If12 n m 1 mn11 C.'7C nwx Notice Criteria Tool S1*`41AX https:Hoeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action--d.. The requirements for filing with the Federal Aviation Administration for proposed structures vary based on a number of factors: height, proximity to an airport, location, and frequencies emitted from the structure, etc. For more details, please reference CFR Title 14 Part 77 9. You must file with the FAA at least 45 days prior to construction if: . your structure will exceed 200ft above ground level . your structure will be in proximity to an airport and will exceed the slope ratio • your structure involves construction of a traverseway (i.e. highway, railroad, waterway etc...) a your structure will emit frequencies, and does not meet the conditions of the FAA Co -location Policy . your structure will be in an instrument approach area and might exceed part 77 Subpart C . your structure will be on an airport or heliport If you require additional information regarding the filing requirements for your structure, please Identify and contact the appropriate FAA representative using the Air Traffic Areas of Responsibility map for OffAirport construction, or contact the FAAAirports Region / District Office for On Airport construction. The too) below will assist in applying Part 77 Notice Criteria. Latitude: ® Deg 31 M 56.58 SON Longitude: 162 Deg 16 M 50.64 s 0 Horizontal Datum: NAD63 Site Elevation (SE): 155 (nearest foot) Structure Height (AGL): 150 (nearest foot) Traverseway: No Traverseway (Additional height is added to certain structures under 77.9(c)) Is structure on abrport: No Yes Results You exceed the following Notice Criteria: Your proposed structure is located within proximity to an airport for which the OEAAA source is not able to provide airport/runway data therefore this tool cannot calculate part 77 notice requirements and return a result. An aeronautical study is needed to obtain the data and evaluate the proposal. The FAA, in accordance with 77.9, requests that you file. 77.9(b) by 183 ft. The nearest airport is WBB, and the nearest runway is 05/23. The FAA requests that you file .I HOO n/111111n71 e.e� n*r Notice Criteria Too] https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/extemal/gisTools/gisAction jsp?action-d... I-,rl n m i Inn 11 c. d9 nod Appendix E Capital Cost Estimate Concept Level Estimate Stebbins Wind Farm Construction Alternative Cost Summary 9/12/2012 CI IMMARY Description Estimated Cost Alternative 1 - Stebbins Site 1 (4 Northern Power 100's) $ 4,220,500.00 Alternative 2 - Stebbins Site 2 (4 Northern Power 100's) $ 4,327,350.00 Alternative 3 - Stebbins Site 1 (1 EWT 52-900) $ 4,875,224.50 Alternative 4 - Stebbins Site 2 (1 EWT 52-900) $ 5,000,725.00 Concept Level Estimate Stebbins Wind Farm Construction Alternative 1 a /7 7 /'7n1 7 Item Estimated Quantity Description Unit Price ($) Subtotal ($) Alternative 1- Stebbins Site 1 (4 Northern Power 100's) 1 6,000 CY Borrow 30 180,000 2 610 CY Surfacing Course 100 61,000 3 49,500 SF Geotextile 2 74,250 4 350 CY Topsoil 85 29,750 5 3,500 SY Seed 5 17,500 6 4 Each Precast Concrete and Rock Anchor Tower Foundations 50,000 200,000 7 4 Each Northwind 100B Wind Turbines 400,000 1,600,000 8 8,500 LF Electrical Spur Line to New Power Plant Location 37 314,500 9 1 Sum Wind turbine Power Integration 150,000 150,000 10 1 Sum Labor 175,000 175,000 11 1 Sum Equipment 150,000 150,000 12 1 Sum Freight 518,000 518,000 13 1 Sum Indirects 200,000 200,000 Subtotal Construction $ 3,670,000 Land Acquisition $0 Project Contingency @ 15% $ 550,500 0 Years Inflation @ 2% $0 Total $ 4,220,500 Installed Generation Capacity 400 kW Total Cost $ 4,220,500 Cost/Installed kW $10,551 Concept Level Estimate Stebbins Wind Farm Construction Alternative 2 QM7/inv Item Estimated Quantity Description Unit Price ($) Subtotal ($) Alternative 2 - Stebbins Site 2 (4 Northern Power 100's) 1 5,200 CY Borrow 30 156,000 2 540 CY Surfacing Course 100 54,000 3 43,000 SF Geotextile 2 64,500 4 310 CY Topsoil 85 26,350 5 2,800 SY Seed 5 14,000 6 4 Each Precast Concrete and Rock Anchor Tower Foundations 50,000 200,000 7 4 Each Northwind 100B Wind Turbines 400,000 1,600,000 8 12,300 LF Electrical Spur Line to New Power Plant Location 37 455,100 9 1 Sum Wind turbine Power Integration 150,000 150,000 10 1 Sum Labor 175,000 175,000 11 1 Sum Equipment 150,000 150,000 12 1 Sum Freight 518,000 518,000 13 1 Sum Indirects 200,000 200,000 Subtotal Construction $ 3,762,950 Land Acquisition $0 Project Contingency @ 15% $ 564,400 0 Years Inflation @ 2% $0 Total $ 4,327,350 Installed Generation Capacity 400 kW Total Cost $ 4,327,350 Cost/Installed kW $10,818 Concept Level Estimate Stebbins Wind Farm Construction Alternative 3 o/ij/7ni7 Item Estimated Quantity Description Unit Price ($) Subtotal ($) Alternative 3 - Stebbins Site 1 (1 EWT 52-900) 1 1,500 CY Borrow 30 45,000 2 150 CY Surfacing Course 100 15,000 3 13,443 SF Geotextile 2 20,165 4 90 CY Topsoil 85 7,650 5 802 SY Seed 5 4,010 6 1 Each Precast Concrete and Rock Anchor Tower Foundations 200,000 200,000 7 1 Each EWT 52/54 Wind Turbine 1,850,000 1,850,000 8 7,500 LF Electrical Spur Line to New Power Plant Location 37 277,500 9 1 Sum Wind turbine Power Integration 150,000 150,000 10 1 Sum Labor 305,000 305,000 11 1 Sum Equipment 450,000 450,000 12 1 Sum Freight 675,000 675,000 13 1 Sum Indirects 240,000 240,000 Subtotal Construction $ 4,239,325 Land Acquisition $0 Project Contingency @ 15% $ 635,900 0 Years Inflation @ 2% $0 Total $ 4,875,225 Installed Generation Capacity 900 kW Total Cost $ 4,875,225 Cost/Installed kW $5,417 Concept Level Estimate Stebbins Wind Farm Construction Alternative 4 4/1 7/7n1 7 Item Estimated Quantity Description Unit Price ($) Subtotal ($) Alternative 4 - Stebbins Site 2 (1 EWT 52-900) 1 915 CY Borrow 30 27,450 2 100 CY Surfacing Course 100 10,000 3 8,000 SF Geotextile 2 12,000 4 55 CY Topsoil 85 4,675 5 500 SY Seed 5 2,500 6 1 Each Precast Concrete and Rock Anchor Tower Foundations 200,000 200,000 7 1 Each EWT 52/54 Wind Turbine 1,850,000 1,850,000 8 11,400 LF Electrical Spur Line to New Power Plant Location 37 421,800 9 1 Sum Wind turbine Power Integration 150,000 150,000 10 1 Sum Labor 305,000 305,000 11 1 Sum Equipment 450,000 450,000 12 1 Sum Freight 675,000 675,000 13 1 Sum Indirects 240,000 240,000 Subtotal Construction $ 4,348,425 Land Acquisition $0 Project Contingency @ 15% $ 652,300 0 Years Inflation @ 2% $0 Total $ 5,000,725 Installed Generation Capacity 900 kW Total Cost $ 5,000,725 Cost/Installed kW $5,556 Appendix F Memo Economic Evaluation i Memorandum Y E R AMW Date: September 14, 2012 W .Ah To: Mark Swenson, Project Manager, HDL Northern Economics From: Leah Cuyno and Pat Burden Z 0 2 Re: Stebbins -St. Michael Proposed Wind Project Economic Evaluation Report Northern Economics is assisting HDL in evaluating the economic merits of a proposed wind energy project that will serve the communities of Stebbins and St. Michael. This memorandum summarizes our economic evaluation. Background AVEC intends to request Renewable Energy Grant funds to finance the installation of a wind turbine or wind turbines Us) to augment existing diesel generated power and heat to meet the energy requirements of the communities of Stebbins and St. Michael. AVEC is in the process of building a new power plant at Stebbins including an electric transmission line (intertie) that will connect the new power plant to the community of St. Michael. As part of the power plant upgrades, new and more efficient diesel generators will be installed. In addition, AVEC is planning to install a heat recovery system that can potentially offset heating fuel consumption at a number of community facilities in Stebbins. Last year, the annual power demand at Stebbins was 1,316,000 kWh (AVEC data). The existing power plant at Stebbins generated 1,354,000 kWh of power using diesel fuel to serve 134 residential customers and 12 community facilities. The utility consumed about 98,470 gallons of diesel fuel and paid an average price of $3.24/gallon. At St. Michael, the annual power demand was 1,683,000 kWh (AVEC data). The power plant in that community generated 1,735,000 kWh of power also using diesel fuel to serve its 102 residential customers and 11 community facilities. The utility consumed about 121,670 and paid an average price of $3.23/gallon. The new wind -diesel system is anticipated to generate economic benefits to the two communities by displacing fuel used for power and heat generation. Description of Proposed Wind -Diesel System There are four alternatives being considered with two different turbine options at two turbine sites; these alternatives are as follows: Alternative 1: 4 Northwind 100 Arctic turbines (400 kW total capacity) at Stebbins Site 1 Alternative 2: 4 Northwind 100 Arctic turbines (400 kW total capacity) at Stebbins Site 2 Alternative 3: 1 EWT 52-900 turbine (900 kW capacity) at Stebbins Site 1 Alternative 4: 1 EWT 52-900 turbine (900 kW capacity) at Stebbins Site 2 880 H Street, Suite 210 1 Tel: 907 274.5600 E-mail: mail@norecon.com Anchorage, AK 99501 i Fax: 907 274.5601 www,northerneconomics.com The new power plant will have 4 new 500 kW Caterpillar 3456 units. These units are expected to have an average fuel efficiency of 15.2 kWh per gallon. The wind system is expected to produce energy for power and for heat. A secondary load (heat) system that enables the utility to capture the excess wind is assumed to be included in the new power plant project. Approach This economic evaluation considers the benefits and costs of the wind system only; the costs and benefits of the new power plant upgrades and transmission line are not included in this economic evaluation. The wind system costs include both the one time capital expense and the annual expense of operating and maintaining the wind turbines. The wind system benefits are the cost savings that are expected to accrue to the utility as the wind energy displaces a portion of the diesel fuel required to power the two communities and heat public facilities in Stebbins. Because these costs and benefits accrue at different points in time, a net present value analysis is used to be able to compare the benefits and the costs. A 3 percent annual rate is used to discount future costs and benefits and express them in the present value terms. The analysis assumes that the turbines will have an operational life of 20 years; future costs and benefits that accrue from the year of construction through the end of the 20-year operating life of the wind system are discounted to their present values. This economic evaluation is consistent with the approach used by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) in evaluating applications for Renewable Energy Grant Funds. The same economic model used by AEA is used in this analysis. Economic Model Inputs and Assumptions Capital Costs: The capital costs of the wind system include all the equipment, materials, and labor necessary to install the wind turbine/s and incorporate it/them into the diesel system. Note that the electrical spur line from the turbines to the new power plant location is also included in the capital cost. The capital costs were estimated by HDL. Alternative 1 has the lowest estimated capital cost at $4.2 million while Alternative 4 has the highest estimated capital cost at $5 million. Details regarding itemized costs for all for alternatives are available from HDL. Construction and Operations Schedule: For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the wind turbines will be installed in year 2014 (all capital costs are assumed to accrue in year 2014). The wind turbines are assumed to start operating in year 2015 (annual O&M costs for the wind turbines accrue starting year 2015 through 2034-- a 20-year operating life). Operations and Maintenance Costs: The annual O&M costs for the wind turbines are calculated using the benchmark variable rate recommended by AEA. The AEA benchmark rate for rural applications is 4.7 cents per kWh of wind energy generated. AEA considered historical information from existing wind -diesel systems in determining this benchmark rate. Alternative 1 has the lowest estimated annual O&M cost at $40,600 and Alternative 4 has the highest estimated O&M cost at $105,790 per year. Note that it is very possible that the EWT 52-900, a bigger turbine, will realize economies of scale that will reduce its variable O&M cost to less than 4.7 cents Northern Economics per kWh of wind power generated. In this case, the economics of the project will be improved. By using the higher cost of 4.7 cents per kWh, this economic evaluation is considered conservative. Annual Wind Generation: For the purpose of this economic evaluation, the annual wind generation is based on the Homer model reports as shown in the Stebbins -Saint Michael Wind -Diesel Feasibility Study provided by Doug Vaught of V3 Energy. The total potential annual wind energy production expected for the 4 alternatives being considered are as follows: • Alternative 1: 868,099 kWh per year • Alternative 2: 1,042,057 kWh per year • Alternative 3: 1,861,484 kWh per year • Alternative 4: 2,255,650 kWh per year According to the report, the estimates are based on 80 percent turbine availability. Note that the Wind Diesel Feasibility Study also reported annual energy productions based on the WAsP model for the 4 alternatives; these numbers were not used in the economic analysis. See the feasibility study for model assumptions, met tower data and data constraints. AEA might expect at least one full year of wind data in considering applications for construction funds. Fuel Displacements: The benefits are quantified based on the value of expected fuel savings from wind energy. Expected fuel displacement is calculated based on the estimated annual wind generation and fuel efficiencies of the generators and the boilers. Wind energy is expected to contribute to both power and heat generation. The Homer model outputs show the amount of excess electricity that can be absorbed to meet thermal requirements. This analysis assumes that all this excess electricity can be used for generating heat. The AEA economic model distinguishes between the fuel used for power generation and heating fuel. The model puts a premium on heating fuel costs as most rural customers pay a higher price for the delivered cost of heating fuel compared to average delivered cost to the power plant. The total potential annual wind energy generation (as noted in the bullets above), is allocated between power and thermal generation. The amount of wind energy used for power generation is derived equal to the total annual potential wind generation less the excess electricity that can be used for thermal requirements. The wind energy used for power generation and for thermal generation should therefore equal the total potential annual wind generation. Note that since this economic evaluation is focused on the wind system, the effects of the heat recovery system currently being considered by AVEC are not addressed. Price of Fuel: The economic benefit of fuel displacement (from wind energy) is quantified using the fuel price projections developed by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER). This price projection is used in the AEA economic model. Prices are projected using the latest Energy Information Administration's (EIA) oil price forecast (base case scenario) as reported in the Annual Energy Outlook. Fuel prices at the community level are projected using a regression analysis that considers the relationship between historical delivered cost of fuel at the community and the imported crude oil prices published by the EIA. For this analysis, the fuel price projection for the community of Stebbins is used. As noted earlier, the economic model incorporates a slight price premium for heating fuel. In addition, the AEA economic model also incorporates a CO2-equivalent allowance cost into the price projections. More details regarding the ISER fuel projections are available at the AEA website. Northern Economics The following table shows the projected prices over the 20-year life of the wind system. Table 1. Fuel Price Projections for Stebbins from 2015 to 2034. Year Projected Fuel Price per Gallon 2015 $4.39 2016 $4.49 2017 $4.42 2018 $4.48 2019 $4.51 2020 $4.54 2021 $4.59 2022 $4.63 2023 $4.68 2024 $4.73 2025 $4.77 2026 $4.81 2027 $4.84 2028 $4.88 2029 $4.91 2030 $4.98 2031 $5.03 2032 $5.09 2033 $5.14 2034 $5.19 Source: ISER Fuel Price Projections as shown in the AEA Economic Model Results and Considerations Table 2 summarizes the economic model inputs, assumptions, and the estimated benefit -cost ratios for the four alternatives being considered. The results indicate that the estimated costs of the Alternatives with the 400 kW wind capacity (1 and 2) outweigh their estimated benefits. The result for Stebbins Site 2 (Alternative 2 with 4 Northwind 100 turbines) however which is expected to have higher wind energy potential indicates that it should be considered; with a B/C ratio close to 1 at 0.98, given the uncertainties around the costs, fuel price, efficiencies, and wind resource estimates, the result is within the margin of error. Alternatives 3 and 4 both result in B/C ratios greater than 1. These two Alternatives consider a higher total wind capacity of 900 kW from a single EWT-900 turbine. Again, the higher wind potential at Stebbins Site # 2, results in a better B/C ratio for Alternative 4 compared to all the other Alternatives. The large capacity wind turbines however can be more expensive to operate even with economies of scale, a consideration for the utility. In addition, the Homer analysis indicated redundancies in the generator capacity. The analysis indicated that with successful incorporation of the wind energy, one of the new diesel generators may not be utilized. The large capacity turbine has high average penetration levels which would require more system controls, i.e. an appropriate control system capable of automatic generator start, stop, and paralleling, a fast acting secondary load controller matched to a secondary load such as an electric boiler. AEA wind managers might carefully examine this design to validate penetration levels. Northern Economics Finally, the Homer analysis indicated trade-offs between a heat recovery system with incorporation of wind energy. This should be a consideration in designing the new power plant, heat recovery system, and secondary load system for the wind energy. Northern Economics C J J J J J a >+ T -O T -O " a -0 ; z >, '0^ a p p p p p p Y m a rn m rn a N 4 - � � 2 cL .L (6 LU ccr) = 2= 2 2= N a) a) � a) Z g U 2 g (D wcis2 C c Z M O O O O t co t L CO O w C C co � C U > > U > U U U U h h m a) a) a) a) a) CO _ _ _ O = O O ¢ Q O N rn a) 2 2 a o Q) cn Y c) Y cn Y to cn Y a w ¢ 0) N N N O O w a) j co 2 2 2 2 Q) Q) cn h o c 0) 7 0) m U% p p p O O ¢ o U w v O N 0 'IT LC) O O O O O (fl C) 0 N Cn O CY)V 0 N O O O m f� O O O O C) M LC) O N V N d' N N o M o M O N I` O N CDL6 M Cl)I� �+ N fn O N N O Ln I� I� L() 00 I- LC) (jo '7 Lo C to 0) 00 O O Cl) V LO N C)0 00 0) N N 0) d> C: T, Lo 6r, M N N M r Q W 'o 2 M O LO V Ln I` IT O O O V C4 O V % W O O N o 1q I O CY) N N O O V O O CY) O O O C) O V M �' Ln O O M C M o N N CO w - O 0 LC) M M .0. (n Ln N N O r 00 V r- a0 M Cl) O V Ln /6 _ LNC) N I` 00 Cf) 00 CA Cfl LO Lo O (fl 00 O 00 Cfl N O Ln 00 N 00 C)) N F- c Q W M � 6 i U) 4 N U N O -q LC) I` N (D LO N t` D) 00 o o co � O O N N i co co O O It O � 00 C) IT (0 Il- M LC) O co I- tC) � V N N M CO LO 00 e- O O Ln M j a� C �:r a _ (n r, N N O 00 m r� O N cli N O M N V L() U 0M C �NON O 0) M00 4 y 0 C7 c7 �• .Q � Q Z � U r O N' LC) I- O O N CO O co r (A T O O N � �1' .L m o LO O O v C) CD co o co V 00 m O O 00 m 'IT O co N M Lo co P- w CD Cfl M ao C a _ Cn O N N O O Lo 00 C6 M q M IT LO O w CV N Cfl 'IT 64 00 O O co CO co CO N - co LO Ln N 00 O O c M M 69, Q z 2 U) L (d (D N c O > 'L > Y a) 70 }. c0 \ C c O ca c6 C L6 w ZT C > O C C O 'O c N Q a a ° U T 2 -C O C o o o O O OL 3 O O 00 a) 3 OL CL c W - O C:)T N N -0i O _C fa (6 C O Fa ^ N c fE Q O (6 C O .0 > i4 O C c a) �. O CL N F- T p N c a�i a o a > a) a m j c C a) \ O O O N O- L o O F- O F- U m O LL p i ca w N rn CJ C) 00 'O c F- t O O n- m 0) c a) i6 c o 05 U L`7 a) a) m -O m U rNn M'ON a)> C_OOQ-7 CW aO ON--L J N _O O O O O N c 0 W n OO a) W o o � 2 � a o CL La cC m coa a0 O OZ5 O co N 7 LL O ONa) pa cL N N a V * ` Fz i m° o La a w W F- 0oo cc o 0m a) cc c dO o a c c o Z U U U O a a a=z a- w w a LL_ m V O C O u LL c `v s O z Appendix G CRC Memo CRC Cultural Resource Consultants LLC August 28, 2012 Known Archaeological and Historical Sites in the Stebbins Area The information below is summarized from the Alaska Historic Resources Survey (AHRS). There are no known sites within either the Bluff or Ridge site areas of interest for the Stebbins Wind Power Feasibility Study, although there is one siteAtrivik (SMI-017) just south of the Bluff Site. Atrivik, a large former Yup'ik village, was occupied about 200 to 500 years ago. On the bluff to the east of Atrivik is a cemetery (SMI-053) that may be the first Russian Orthodox cemetery associated with Stebbins. There is another known site, Teq'errlak (SMI-019), on the coast between the Bluff and Ridge site areas. Determined eligible for listing on the National Register in 2007, Teq'errlak consists of an extensive midden, numerous house and cache pits, and at least 24 burials. East of the Ridge Site, on the northern coast of St. Michael Island, is Cingikegglirmiullret (SMI-020). There is no information in the AHRS about this site. In the general area and north of Stebbins village are Armory Stebbins (SMI-098) and the modern Stebbins cemetery (SMI-090). Stebbins Village (SMI-012) was first mentioned in 1898 by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Its Eskimo name is reported to be "Atroik." In 1950, there were about 80 people living in the village whose main livelihood was hunting, fishing, and reindeer herding. Within the village are the Assembly of God Church (SMI-101), Old Johnson's House (SMI-084), two BIA Territorial Schools (SMI-108 and SMI-109), and several historic houses (SMI-099, SMI-100, SMI-102, SMI-103, SMI-104, SMI-105, SMI-106, SMI-107, and SMI- 110). About 200 meters (m) east of Stebbins is SMI-050—a series of 500-year old house depressions located near the northern and northwestern ends of Stebbins Lake. Located near the western/southwestern corner of Stebbins Lake are four small, shallow, circular depressions (SMI-051) that date to approximately 1,750 years ago and fall within the Norton Phase of the Arctic Small Took tradition. On the eastern side of the lake are 13 features (SMI-052) that are roughly 2,500 years old and range in size from 40 feet in diameter to cache pit size. Along the beach at the south/southeastern end of the lake are several shallow features (SMI-085), some of which might be associated with road construction. Three, large, rectangular house features (SMI-086) are on a beach ridge south of the lake. One has a distinctive long entry tunnel. Located on the same beach ridge as SMI-051 and at the southwestern corner of the lake are three very shallow features (SMI-087) of indeterminate age. CULTURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS LLC 3504 East 67th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 (907) 349-3445 About 0.5 mile south of Stebbins is Pengurmiullret (SMI-018), the initial settlement of migrants from the south (from Nelson Island and other areas) who came around the first decade of the 20t' century and whose descendants comprise the majority of the contemporary population of Stebbins. Previous Survey in the Immediate Project Area In 2009, Northern Land Use Research (NLUR) archaeologist Andy Higgs conducted an archaeological survey of potential material sources in the Stebbins/St. Michael area, including two north of Stebbins in the immediate vicinity of the two wind tower site alternatives (Higgs 2009). One, the Stebbins Rock quarry, is just east of the Bluff Site, adjacent to the Stebbins landfill. This quarry had also been surveyed in 2005 by NLUR archaeologist Carol Gelvin- Reymiller (et al. 2005). Higgs examined the active quarry and a 15-acre expansion area to the south in 2009 and concluded "No known cultural resources exist here and there is no indication that expansion of the quarry would impact unknown historic resources" (Higgs 2009:7). Higgs also surveyed the Stephens Hill Quarry, located approximately 0.7 mile east of the Ridge Site. He noted: Native place name research for Stephens Hill identifies the general area as "Cingikeggliq" translated as "point or tip" referring more to the coastal areas north of the prominent hilltop. In 1988, [Gary] Navarre indicates he examined Stephens Hill as a potential resource for the Stebbins -St. Michael (BIA) road but he found no cultural resources. Navarre recommended it for clearance and SHPO concurred (Higgs 2009:7). Higgs looked at this 0.2 mile long quarry area along the southern margin of the St. Michael - Stebbins Road that is used by the City of Stebbins as their main gravel source. He found no cultural resources and concluded "there is no indication that expansion of the quarry would impact unknown historic resources" (Higgs 2009:7-8). Assessment There are no known cultural resources within the Bluff or Ridge site areas of interest for the Stebbins Wind Power Feasibility Study, although Atrivik (SMI-017) is just south of the Bluff area and Teq'errlak (SMI-019) is on the coast between the two areas. However, based on NLUR's surveys of material sources in the vicinity, it would seem that there is a relatively low probability of undiscovered sites within the actual project areas. With the understanding that this undertaking would still need to be reviewed by archaeologists at the State Office of History and Archaeology, and the proviso that any previously undiscovered cultural remains should be immediately reported to the State Historic Preservation Officer, Cultural Resource Consultants LLC does not recommend a field survey for the Stebbins Wind Power Feasibility Study. CULTURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS LLC 3504 East 67th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 (907) 349-3445 References Cited Gelvin-Reymiller, Carol, Sarah McGowan, and Ben A. Potter 2005 Cultural Resource Survey for Proposed Airport Improvements at Stebbins, Alaska. Report Prepared for DOWL Engineers, Anchorage. Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks. Higgs, Andy 2009 St. Michael and Stebbins Material Source Cultural Resource Survey, St. Michael Island, Alaska. Report prepared for Bristol Environmental & Engineering Services Corporation, Anchorage. Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks. CULTURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS LLC 3504 East 67th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 (907) 349-3445